GPS PPL Syllabus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 / LTN - Yes this is definitely the case with the FAA on the IR. If the kit is in your aircraft then they will expect you to know how to use it! When I did my IR a few years ago we had only briefly touched on the GPS and how GPS autopilot approaches could be flown and therefore prior to the test the Db card was removed and the unit marked InOp - problem solved 
The aircraft I fly now has panel mounted IFR approved GPS which I am currently teaching myself to use - albeit slowly! The AP is not as good as on the training aircraft I used though so doubt I will be flying any coupled approaches unless the group decides to upgrade it which we are currently discussing.
It is nice to see instructors such as FFF going the extra yard and offering bolt-on courses on GPS, etc and surprised no-one has taken him up on it. Its not only good for the student to give them confidence and also explore any areas they probobly wouldnt otherwise but it generates revenue for the clubs (and instructors of course
).
Advances in technology should be embraced as has been emphasised ealier! I am all for learning dead reckoning, never any question about that, but to then go on to say that that is the only way and will always be the primary method of navigation is madness!!!! The logical method, and also to reduce cockpit workload, is to use map, visual and GPS together - which is how I fly.
If the 'old school' want to bury their heads in the sand and just write GPS and other advances off then let them, but I take it they are also still travelling round in horse and cart because obviously they are all throughly aware that travelling above 20MPH will cause you to suffocate!
Julian.
The aircraft I fly now has panel mounted IFR approved GPS which I am currently teaching myself to use - albeit slowly! The AP is not as good as on the training aircraft I used though so doubt I will be flying any coupled approaches unless the group decides to upgrade it which we are currently discussing.
It is nice to see instructors such as FFF going the extra yard and offering bolt-on courses on GPS, etc and surprised no-one has taken him up on it. Its not only good for the student to give them confidence and also explore any areas they probobly wouldnt otherwise but it generates revenue for the clubs (and instructors of course
). Advances in technology should be embraced as has been emphasised ealier! I am all for learning dead reckoning, never any question about that, but to then go on to say that that is the only way and will always be the primary method of navigation is madness!!!! The logical method, and also to reduce cockpit workload, is to use map, visual and GPS together - which is how I fly.
If the 'old school' want to bury their heads in the sand and just write GPS and other advances off then let them, but I take it they are also still travelling round in horse and cart because obviously they are all throughly aware that travelling above 20MPH will cause you to suffocate!
Julian.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing you normally have at sea is thinking time,travelling say 8-9 knots in a boat against 115kts in a plane.
The important thing that is mandatory for a PPL is obtaining a licence,believe it or not,in the UK a total plonker with no knowledge of the sea ,nav,collision regs ,met, etc, can buy a million pound boat and drive it away without a licence.
The yachtmaster offshore,(which my wife and I have) is not mandatory,amazing!
What sometimes happens is they take the wife and friends away for the weekend,land up on a sandbank or worse,frighten themselves s**tl**s,then sell the boat.
Lister
The important thing that is mandatory for a PPL is obtaining a licence,believe it or not,in the UK a total plonker with no knowledge of the sea ,nav,collision regs ,met, etc, can buy a million pound boat and drive it away without a licence.
The yachtmaster offshore,(which my wife and I have) is not mandatory,amazing!
What sometimes happens is they take the wife and friends away for the weekend,land up on a sandbank or worse,frighten themselves s**tl**s,then sell the boat.
Lister
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than relative acceptance of GPS in the former, one cannot compare sailing with flying.
This stating the obvious, but sailing is 2D, flying is 3D. If it wasn't for CAS, nobody would really care where people end up. And CAS can be infringed both laterally and vertically. It's got to be REALLY hard to make a nav error on a boat with a GPS showing the marine chart, yet one can still make a £5000 error in a plane with the best GPS available, because there is no vertical guidance.
In my FAA PPL checkride I was told very clearly that I had to know all the kit fitted. This included a GNS430 and a Stec 55X autopilot. The examiner got me to use it all, including using the AP to hold the plane in a 5 degree left bank orbit while I worked out a complicated diversion. This is exactly the correct procedure for any sort of emergency: autopilot comes on immediately and you sort out whatever needs sorting out. Airlines got thinking this way decades ago but in UK GA, you are supposed to grow an extra 0.5" of chest hair to demonstrate you are a real he-pilot. The old farts at the CAA must really love this stuff..........
This stating the obvious, but sailing is 2D, flying is 3D. If it wasn't for CAS, nobody would really care where people end up. And CAS can be infringed both laterally and vertically. It's got to be REALLY hard to make a nav error on a boat with a GPS showing the marine chart, yet one can still make a £5000 error in a plane with the best GPS available, because there is no vertical guidance.
In my FAA PPL checkride I was told very clearly that I had to know all the kit fitted. This included a GNS430 and a Stec 55X autopilot. The examiner got me to use it all, including using the AP to hold the plane in a 5 degree left bank orbit while I worked out a complicated diversion. This is exactly the correct procedure for any sort of emergency: autopilot comes on immediately and you sort out whatever needs sorting out. Airlines got thinking this way decades ago but in UK GA, you are supposed to grow an extra 0.5" of chest hair to demonstrate you are a real he-pilot. The old farts at the CAA must really love this stuff..........
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - I know you have said previously you do not sail so your comments are understandable and have some merit.
However accurate navigation in a yacht can still be pretty important and challenging. IFR becomes sailing in fog - not uncommon. An ILS becomes navigating through the loo channel (a narrow channel off Selsey where you may recall Ted Heath's yacht Morning Cloud sank near there) between the sand banks at night, and CAS becomes your crew of "innocent" fellow sailors who would far rather not find themselves swiming.
Charliegolf - yes, each to his own BUT I still feel strongly enough to disagree only because I am concerned about other pilot's safety. Believing that navigating over any long distance with a chart on your lap, and mark 1 computer in your hand and stop watch on the other seat gives you more time with your head outside the cockpit is just daft and when you are looking outside for ground features believing you have got an effective scan going is also daft. Sorry but I just have to beg to disagree. Fly with someone who uses a really good moving map and see how little time they spend looking in the cockpit and how good an effective external scan they have going and then tell me I am wrong.
However accurate navigation in a yacht can still be pretty important and challenging. IFR becomes sailing in fog - not uncommon. An ILS becomes navigating through the loo channel (a narrow channel off Selsey where you may recall Ted Heath's yacht Morning Cloud sank near there) between the sand banks at night, and CAS becomes your crew of "innocent" fellow sailors who would far rather not find themselves swiming.
Charliegolf - yes, each to his own BUT I still feel strongly enough to disagree only because I am concerned about other pilot's safety. Believing that navigating over any long distance with a chart on your lap, and mark 1 computer in your hand and stop watch on the other seat gives you more time with your head outside the cockpit is just daft and when you are looking outside for ground features believing you have got an effective scan going is also daft. Sorry but I just have to beg to disagree. Fly with someone who uses a really good moving map and see how little time they spend looking in the cockpit and how good an effective external scan they have going and then tell me I am wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with friends with really good moving map GPS. They are great tools.
My concern is that they -and they may well be in a minority - have developed a habit of sticking firmly to the pre-determined route. Not sure why!
I'm all in favour of this type of GPS to help in diversions, within limits. What does worry me are pilots, such as the one I encountered on Saturday, ploughing a furrow between two waypoints and failing to make a turn to avoid a head-on collision.
My concern is that they -and they may well be in a minority - have developed a habit of sticking firmly to the pre-determined route. Not sure why!
I'm all in favour of this type of GPS to help in diversions, within limits. What does worry me are pilots, such as the one I encountered on Saturday, ploughing a furrow between two waypoints and failing to make a turn to avoid a head-on collision.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin,
I think you are mixing two unrelated issues up.
I tend to stick to my predetermined route. I stick to it now that I fly with a gps, and I stuck to it when I navigated solely with a compass and stopwatch. I do my planning on the ground, and it leaves my brain free to deal with operational issues while in the air.
Changing the route while in the air, involves too much heads down time, checking for airspace/obstructions/frequencies etc if I want to change my route. While if I follow my predetermined route, I have all the info I need on my knee board, in the correct order. That's not to say I don't sometimes change it, but it's not usually on a whim; it's usually because something about the flight or conditions have changed.
As for thinking that I would not take avoiding action when I see someone else coming straight for me, simply because it's my predetermined route that I programmed into my gps, well....that's just silly. No one would do something like that.
The only reasons that someone would not turn to avoid a collision is
A) they are insane
B) the wish to take their own life, and yours
C) the didn't see you.
I suspect that on a balance of probabilities that c is the correct answer; they didn't see you. Perhaps they were studying their chart, and working out headings and timings for a new route, instead of looking out?
dp
I think you are mixing two unrelated issues up.
I tend to stick to my predetermined route. I stick to it now that I fly with a gps, and I stuck to it when I navigated solely with a compass and stopwatch. I do my planning on the ground, and it leaves my brain free to deal with operational issues while in the air.
Changing the route while in the air, involves too much heads down time, checking for airspace/obstructions/frequencies etc if I want to change my route. While if I follow my predetermined route, I have all the info I need on my knee board, in the correct order. That's not to say I don't sometimes change it, but it's not usually on a whim; it's usually because something about the flight or conditions have changed.
As for thinking that I would not take avoiding action when I see someone else coming straight for me, simply because it's my predetermined route that I programmed into my gps, well....that's just silly. No one would do something like that.
The only reasons that someone would not turn to avoid a collision is
A) they are insane
B) the wish to take their own life, and yours
C) the didn't see you.
I suspect that on a balance of probabilities that c is the correct answer; they didn't see you. Perhaps they were studying their chart, and working out headings and timings for a new route, instead of looking out?
dp
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways, sailing has more issues with GPS than aviation. There are indeed restricted areas (some mobile) at sea and possible fines for those who infringe them. Two major issues with GPS at sea is the issue of accuracy when navigating close to shore (mainly due to the accuracy of the chart) and colliding with solid waypoints. For general GA aviation, GPS is more than accurate enough and is certainly capable of generating a flock of spam cans over published waypoints.
I think that GPS should be introduced into the last few hours of the PPL course and should cover the following:
General theory (very basic)
Possible problems and threats to reliability of the satelite system
Where to find information on planned jamming activities
How to set up the unit and view the satelite screen
Put in a basic flight plan accounting for terrain, CAS etc
Reverse a route and use the NRST and/or GOTO function
Set up a heading indicator so that the course can be followed.
THE IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING THE NAV ON A CHART AND NOT TO GET DISTRACTED BY THE SET ONCE AIRBOURNE.
My issue with GPS is simply that pilots get suckered into following numbers/needles on a box in the cockpit rather than setting the aircraft up in the right direction and flying towards the landmark on the nose. IFR pilots follow needles on dials, VFR pilots follow their nose. IFR pilots follow rules that ensure they don't fly into someone else or the ground, VFR pilots use their eyes to make sure they remain safe.
GPS is a great tool, but you cannot let it distract you from your responsibilities of your flight rules.
I think that GPS should be introduced into the last few hours of the PPL course and should cover the following:
General theory (very basic)
Possible problems and threats to reliability of the satelite system
Where to find information on planned jamming activities
How to set up the unit and view the satelite screen
Put in a basic flight plan accounting for terrain, CAS etc
Reverse a route and use the NRST and/or GOTO function
Set up a heading indicator so that the course can be followed.
THE IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING THE NAV ON A CHART AND NOT TO GET DISTRACTED BY THE SET ONCE AIRBOURNE.
My issue with GPS is simply that pilots get suckered into following numbers/needles on a box in the cockpit rather than setting the aircraft up in the right direction and flying towards the landmark on the nose. IFR pilots follow needles on dials, VFR pilots follow their nose. IFR pilots follow rules that ensure they don't fly into someone else or the ground, VFR pilots use their eyes to make sure they remain safe.
GPS is a great tool, but you cannot let it distract you from your responsibilities of your flight rules.
"My issue with GPS is simply that pilots get suckered into following numbers/needles on a box in the cockpit rather than setting the aircraft up in the right direction and flying towards the landmark on the nose. IFR pilots follow needles on dials, VFR pilots follow their nose. IFR pilots follow rules that ensure they don't fly into someone else or the ground, VFR pilots use their eyes to make sure they remain safe."
I agree with Droopy.
And I never mentioned sailing with GPS! My (lost) point was that the then new 'safety toy', radar, aided the commission of several accidents through distraction and sense of security.
CG
I agree with Droopy.
And I never mentioned sailing with GPS! My (lost) point was that the then new 'safety toy', radar, aided the commission of several accidents through distraction and sense of security.
CG
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopystop
Your "numbers/needles" comment shows you haven't got (or haven't seen) a decent moving map GPS.
The principal control on a moving map GPS is the on/off switch, which you depress, and wait a minute or two.
If you want to get really advanced, you load your route into it, but you do that on the ground.
Your "numbers/needles" comment shows you haven't got (or haven't seen) a decent moving map GPS.
The principal control on a moving map GPS is the on/off switch, which you depress, and wait a minute or two.
If you want to get really advanced, you load your route into it, but you do that on the ground.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charliegolf and Droopystop
Your post are really worrying because they suggest you actually no not have the faintest idea how to use a moving map GPS.
Lets assume you input a course. The course is shown as a line and hopefully the aircraft is on the line. The line will usually be long, unless you happen to be flying a number of very short legs each followed by a turning point. With the aircraft on the line set a course you think is correct and looking out the window aim at a visual reference point on the horizon. After 10 minutes or so glance at the GPS and see if you need to adjust a bit right or left and select another visual reference point accordingly. Eventually you will get to where you are going. Quite how that results in your spending any time at all with your head in the cockpit completely escapes me other than a very occasional glance at the moving map. It also beats me that if you were comparing a chart on your lap with what you see on the gorund you would not spend more time looking down.
Whilst setups I know vary I like the GPS as high up on the panel as possible - that way it is a quick glance slightly down from the screen to see all is well rather than on to your lap or knee baord.
Now you tell me how you would go about an unplanned diversion. Presumably your head is down in the cockpit and the sequence might go a bit like this:
Refold the map becasue your diversion is over the current fold - bother!
Draw a line (where is the ruler)
Oops just broke the lead
Find the calculator
Do a few calcualtions to allow for the cross wind
Do a few more calculations to work out a heading
Spend a while peering down, left and right to see whether the ground features vaguely resemble what you expect
Get a bit uncertain of position
That all results in a pretty sold scan then.
Now the GPS version.
Hit the NRST button
Select the diversion and hit enter - thats 10 seconds.
Steer onto new heading (all the while looking out)
Glance at GPS every 10 minutes to check established on new heading.
Am I missing the point?
Your post are really worrying because they suggest you actually no not have the faintest idea how to use a moving map GPS.
Lets assume you input a course. The course is shown as a line and hopefully the aircraft is on the line. The line will usually be long, unless you happen to be flying a number of very short legs each followed by a turning point. With the aircraft on the line set a course you think is correct and looking out the window aim at a visual reference point on the horizon. After 10 minutes or so glance at the GPS and see if you need to adjust a bit right or left and select another visual reference point accordingly. Eventually you will get to where you are going. Quite how that results in your spending any time at all with your head in the cockpit completely escapes me other than a very occasional glance at the moving map. It also beats me that if you were comparing a chart on your lap with what you see on the gorund you would not spend more time looking down.
Whilst setups I know vary I like the GPS as high up on the panel as possible - that way it is a quick glance slightly down from the screen to see all is well rather than on to your lap or knee baord.
Now you tell me how you would go about an unplanned diversion. Presumably your head is down in the cockpit and the sequence might go a bit like this:
Refold the map becasue your diversion is over the current fold - bother!
Draw a line (where is the ruler)
Oops just broke the lead
Find the calculator
Do a few calcualtions to allow for the cross wind
Do a few more calculations to work out a heading
Spend a while peering down, left and right to see whether the ground features vaguely resemble what you expect
Get a bit uncertain of position
That all results in a pretty sold scan then.
Now the GPS version.
Hit the NRST button
Select the diversion and hit enter - thats 10 seconds.
Steer onto new heading (all the while looking out)
Glance at GPS every 10 minutes to check established on new heading.
Am I missing the point?
All fine and good, but you must ALWAYS ask yourself the question:
"What will I do if the GPS fails right now?"
Dual redundant IFR approved systems are one thing, more basic VFR systems quite another. But both are EXCELLENT tools when used with respect for their limitations.
I wish that more of the pilots at my club could be bothered to learn how to use the panel-mounted GPS systems we bought for all the aircraft. The user guides are on our Yahoo! Newsgroup, freely available for members to download and study at their leisure. But even some of the FIs can't, it seems, be bothered to switch them on and use even the basic 'Direct to' function....
The CAA's CFE has now decided that an element of visual navigation must be included in SEP LPCs/LSTs. If a candidate wants to use GPS for that, that's fine by me - if he/she does so correctly.
"What will I do if the GPS fails right now?"
Dual redundant IFR approved systems are one thing, more basic VFR systems quite another. But both are EXCELLENT tools when used with respect for their limitations.
I wish that more of the pilots at my club could be bothered to learn how to use the panel-mounted GPS systems we bought for all the aircraft. The user guides are on our Yahoo! Newsgroup, freely available for members to download and study at their leisure. But even some of the FIs can't, it seems, be bothered to switch them on and use even the basic 'Direct to' function....
The CAA's CFE has now decided that an element of visual navigation must be included in SEP LPCs/LSTs. If a candidate wants to use GPS for that, that's fine by me - if he/she does so correctly.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps people who insist on having their GPS strapped to their leg throughout their PPL student course should be issued with a licence "Only Valid in Aircraft fitted with Panel mounted GPS". If it fails they declare an emergency and land ASAP, though how would they know where the nearest airport is??
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Please add into your diversion checklist a check that you are not going to cross controlled airspace, danger/restricted/prohibited areas, any relevant NOTAM'ed areas, etc. Either using your GPS (if it is up to date) or your chart.
Also, what radio frequencies are you going to use, both for the en-route phase of your diversion and the arrival? Almost any GPS will be able to give you the relevant frequencies (so long as the database is up to date, of course), usually with just a couple of button presses, but do you know which buttons to press? In a high workload situation, in bad weather?
It's well worth knowing how to really use your GPS before you set out!
FFF
--------------
Please add into your diversion checklist a check that you are not going to cross controlled airspace, danger/restricted/prohibited areas, any relevant NOTAM'ed areas, etc. Either using your GPS (if it is up to date) or your chart.
Also, what radio frequencies are you going to use, both for the en-route phase of your diversion and the arrival? Almost any GPS will be able to give you the relevant frequencies (so long as the database is up to date, of course), usually with just a couple of button presses, but do you know which buttons to press? In a high workload situation, in bad weather?
It's well worth knowing how to really use your GPS before you set out!
FFF
--------------
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingForFun - I agree completely with your comments. I was simply seeking to illustrate why I do not accept the claim that you spend more time with "your head out of the cockpit" navigating traditionallly compared with navigating by GPS.
Slim_slag ad Beagle - I also agree completely with your comments. I personally think all pilots should be able to navigate employing other means should the GPS fail.
However the anti GPS lobby would have you believe GPS is a more vunerable tecnology that everything else we use. With the exception of the mark 1 eyeball, this is not my experience. As posted previously I have had two VORs fail never mind the numerous occasions the signal was too weak, but I have never had a GPS failure. Before the advent of GPS operating IFR IMC there were times pilots were falling back on dead reckoning so I think we have to be very careful painting this myth that other radio navigation equipment is ultra reliable. Any equipment can fail, but in my opinion GPS is actually more reliable than mostof the kit carried in a typical SEP.
Slim_slag ad Beagle - I also agree completely with your comments. I personally think all pilots should be able to navigate employing other means should the GPS fail.
However the anti GPS lobby would have you believe GPS is a more vunerable tecnology that everything else we use. With the exception of the mark 1 eyeball, this is not my experience. As posted previously I have had two VORs fail never mind the numerous occasions the signal was too weak, but I have never had a GPS failure. Before the advent of GPS operating IFR IMC there were times pilots were falling back on dead reckoning so I think we have to be very careful painting this myth that other radio navigation equipment is ultra reliable. Any equipment can fail, but in my opinion GPS is actually more reliable than mostof the kit carried in a typical SEP.
I've had to get one of the GNC250s repaired (input selector failed) and one of the GPS150s repaired (ENT key failed). But overall the reliability of our Garmin kit has been much higher than the failure rate of Bendix King KX155 NavCom, DME and ADF displays which seem to fail with monotonous and expensive regularity!
And as for the actual cost and usefulness of the ADF receivers....
We get the odd RAIM ALERT, but apart from that (and the end of epoch rollover nause a couple of years ago) the GPS performance has been superb.
And as for the actual cost and usefulness of the ADF receivers....
We get the odd RAIM ALERT, but apart from that (and the end of epoch rollover nause a couple of years ago) the GPS performance has been superb.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I think you regular, experienced flyers with your own GPS kit are missing my point. You and I know that you need to keep your eyes out and know how to use the GPS in conjunction with standard VFR lookout procedures. My point is that a low time, infrequent pilot who might not be as familiar with the a/c panel mount/ their own hand held as they should is likely to be distracted by the gadget. This is exacerbated by a busy flying school where hire slots are tight leading to the "I'll sort the GPS out once I am up" syndrome. Hence the need for proper training.
I do fly with a basic moving map - if you knew my trade you might be amazed at how basic it is, but it works very well. Yes a proper moving map with CAA charts and OS maps would be great but (with the exception of memory map) unavailable to the consumer market.
I am not anti GPS and I know that GPS will make low time pilot's flying less stressful, but IMHO the distraction issue is significant and would need to be addressed by training.
I do fly with a basic moving map - if you knew my trade you might be amazed at how basic it is, but it works very well. Yes a proper moving map with CAA charts and OS maps would be great but (with the exception of memory map) unavailable to the consumer market.
I am not anti GPS and I know that GPS will make low time pilot's flying less stressful, but IMHO the distraction issue is significant and would need to be addressed by training.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but IMHO the distraction issue is significant and would need to be addressed by training.
What would you include in the training?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I struggle to give a sensible answer to that question, because I think that including GPS in the PPL would make everybody realise what a load of useless cr*p they have been taught the previous X hours. I really do think that is the biggest reason PPL instructors don't want this; it would undermine so much of their whole approach to flight training.
But anyway....
Mandatory moving map (anything less is just too difficult and dangerous)
How to switch it on.
The general principles of loading a route (a "flight plan") into it, checking that it looks right, and flying it by adjusting the heading to make the aircraft's track match the flight plan leg track.
But anyway....
Mandatory moving map (anything less is just too difficult and dangerous)
How to switch it on.
The general principles of loading a route (a "flight plan") into it, checking that it looks right, and flying it by adjusting the heading to make the aircraft's track match the flight plan leg track.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would make everybody realise what a load of useless cr*p they have been taught the previous X hours. I really do think that is the biggest reason PPL instructors don't want this