UK trial GPS approaches, non-G-reg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA addresses this pretty effectively by the fact that if you turn up for an FAA checkride (PPL or IR) in some spaceship, the examiner will ask you to show you can operate all the buttons.
Gets a little worrisome when you are used to rented spamcans and then go to the USA to do the PPL or whatever, and all the planes you can rent have a GNS430+530+ S-tec 55X
I do agree, however, that GPS training is needed to fly GPS approaches. I guess the biggest problem will be to find instructors - I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed, all done with the GPS in LEG/OBS modes as intended by the manufacturer.
In reality, people who fly planes at this level aren't stupid, and they stick to the features they know, and ignore the rest. Nothing wrong with that.
Gets a little worrisome when you are used to rented spamcans and then go to the USA to do the PPL or whatever, and all the planes you can rent have a GNS430+530+ S-tec 55X
I do agree, however, that GPS training is needed to fly GPS approaches. I guess the biggest problem will be to find instructors - I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed, all done with the GPS in LEG/OBS modes as intended by the manufacturer.
In reality, people who fly planes at this level aren't stupid, and they stick to the features they know, and ignore the rest. Nothing wrong with that.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed, all done with the GPS in LEG/OBS modes as intended by the manufacturer.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that there is a definite air of snobbery in Britain, which tends to make some people think that N reg and American licence holders are trained to inferior standards 
. Frankly this attitude used to bug me, but now I couldn't care less (I've been flying with an FAA instrument rating since 2001 when I had 140 hours TT, and have never let it lapse.......unlike some people who let their IR lapse a year after achieving it). I have done many GPS approaches, manually flown and (shock horror) autopilot coupled, and they work well, so I don't really know why they need to be trialed? Whoever designes them just needs to pick several waypoints on the map, and create the approach - not rocket science. If I could edit the dB of an IFR certified GPS I could create my own into my own home airfield
Maybe the British pilot just can't handle them (new fangled technology and all that), and that the CAA are actually admitting that there is no point including N registered aeroplanes, as chances are that their pilots are indeed very familiar with the GPS approach.
. Frankly this attitude used to bug me, but now I couldn't care less (I've been flying with an FAA instrument rating since 2001 when I had 140 hours TT, and have never let it lapse.......unlike some people who let their IR lapse a year after achieving it). I have done many GPS approaches, manually flown and (shock horror) autopilot coupled, and they work well, so I don't really know why they need to be trialed? Whoever designes them just needs to pick several waypoints on the map, and create the approach - not rocket science. If I could edit the dB of an IFR certified GPS I could create my own into my own home airfield Maybe the British pilot just can't handle them (new fangled technology and all that), and that the CAA are actually admitting that there is no point including N registered aeroplanes, as chances are that their pilots are indeed very familiar with the GPS approach.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
I have never met anyone in the UK who fully understands the ins and outs of how to fly a full approach and then transition to the missed,
Of course, we may not teach it the way you want to hear it, but it pleases the CAA and the FAA and the appropriate manufacturers!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its bizarre.
All these instructors in the UK apparently teaching GPS approaches as if we have been doing them for years and the techniques are well established
- and there was me thinking they only just started trialing them
- I know they must have learnt in the States or courtesy of Mr Gates
- or not really know what they are doing yet
Mind you I wouldnt mind meeting at least one of them - and you teach where?
All these instructors in the UK apparently teaching GPS approaches as if we have been doing them for years and the techniques are well established
- and there was me thinking they only just started trialing them
- I know they must have learnt in the States or courtesy of Mr Gates
- or not really know what they are doing yet
Mind you I wouldnt mind meeting at least one of them - and you teach where?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 17th Jun 2006 at 21:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These amazing instructors, Fuji, must have a pretty interesting life. Way above the normal training industry average. I mean, for every practice approach they have been teaching, they have had to fly to France or perhaps much further, with the student paying for it
It's a windup.
Especially if the missed approach procedure is based on a conventional navaid.
It's a windup.
Especially if the missed approach procedure is based on a conventional navaid.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
For a "very well traveled pilot flying all over Europe", France can be far away when it suits your argument!
If you did an IR in the USA, you would have had ample oportunity to try out all sorts of GPS approaches.
Perhaps you need to ask round about training providers who operate in more than just the UK as well as those providing training for the Avidyne and Garmin 1000 integrated systems not to mention FNPT 2 training in GPS approach procedures.
From your postings regarding GPS, I can tell that your experience and training does not match your bluster and that you by your own admission can not cope without GPS. Perhaps a few well spent minutes in the company of an instructor would improve your life expectancy.
Regards,
DFC
For a "very well traveled pilot flying all over Europe", France can be far away when it suits your argument!
If you did an IR in the USA, you would have had ample oportunity to try out all sorts of GPS approaches.
Perhaps you need to ask round about training providers who operate in more than just the UK as well as those providing training for the Avidyne and Garmin 1000 integrated systems not to mention FNPT 2 training in GPS approach procedures.
From your postings regarding GPS, I can tell that your experience and training does not match your bluster and that you by your own admission can not cope without GPS. Perhaps a few well spent minutes in the company of an instructor would improve your life expectancy.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC I am not taking your very obvious bait, but being relatively civilised will reply to other points.
In the USA, a pilot (PPL or IR) has a choice of schools. Some have very modern spamcans (if that's not a contradiction in terms) with a G1000, some will have spamcans with GNS430/530 type stuff, some will have spamcans just like the UK with old junk that's almost falling out of the panel.
You can get your training done in any of these. It's your choice. But whatever you learn it you will do the checkride in and the examiner will expect to see mastery of the aircraft.
If you choose a school with a C172 with a G1000 and all the other kit, you will get the same IR as in a school flying junk. But the former will take 1-2 weeks longer (unless you know the kit already which is probably unlikely at that stage). And a lot of the procedures are highly equipment specific, so if you learn on a G1000+55X plane and then fly a KLN94/KMD550+KFC225 plane, there will be a lot to un-learn and re-learn. in IFR, currency on type is #1 #2 and #3.
So there is a good argument for doing a simple IR where you spend some weeks, several hours a day, banging VORs, localisers and glideslopes (which is what I did) and then getting type specific training on the stuff you will be flying afterwards. Such an IR is similar to the JAA IR, which is still pretty traditional in terms of resources used.
In this context we are usually talking about whole or part-ownership so there is ample opportunity to get clued up and put in the hours.
The immediate problem is that very few instructors in the UK, or indeed Europe, know anything about modern avionics. The next problem is lack of places to practice; no point in going to France to fly a GPS approach when a) there aren't any in the UK; b) any that might come are duplicates of existing procedures which can be flown conventionally and/or with GPS; c) any in Europe are on airports that (mostly) have ILS anyway.
Usually the only way for UK pilots to learn the procedures is by reading the American flying magazines. They often contain excellent articles.
In the USA, a pilot (PPL or IR) has a choice of schools. Some have very modern spamcans (if that's not a contradiction in terms) with a G1000, some will have spamcans with GNS430/530 type stuff, some will have spamcans just like the UK with old junk that's almost falling out of the panel.
You can get your training done in any of these. It's your choice. But whatever you learn it you will do the checkride in and the examiner will expect to see mastery of the aircraft.
If you choose a school with a C172 with a G1000 and all the other kit, you will get the same IR as in a school flying junk. But the former will take 1-2 weeks longer (unless you know the kit already which is probably unlikely at that stage). And a lot of the procedures are highly equipment specific, so if you learn on a G1000+55X plane and then fly a KLN94/KMD550+KFC225 plane, there will be a lot to un-learn and re-learn. in IFR, currency on type is #1 #2 and #3.
So there is a good argument for doing a simple IR where you spend some weeks, several hours a day, banging VORs, localisers and glideslopes (which is what I did) and then getting type specific training on the stuff you will be flying afterwards. Such an IR is similar to the JAA IR, which is still pretty traditional in terms of resources used.
In this context we are usually talking about whole or part-ownership so there is ample opportunity to get clued up and put in the hours.
The immediate problem is that very few instructors in the UK, or indeed Europe, know anything about modern avionics. The next problem is lack of places to practice; no point in going to France to fly a GPS approach when a) there aren't any in the UK; b) any that might come are duplicates of existing procedures which can be flown conventionally and/or with GPS; c) any in Europe are on airports that (mostly) have ILS anyway.
Usually the only way for UK pilots to learn the procedures is by reading the American flying magazines. They often contain excellent articles.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think the real problem is that all this wonderful training is going on some where and presumably available to all but no one will reveal where. It is obvioulsy a very closely guarded secret. In fact so closely guarded that I wonder whether you have to shoot yourself if you mistakenly reveal the location.
It must be a bit like EASA - dont provide the users with any means of contacting them by telehone and then you can be certain the number of complaints you receive will half. The perfect solution towards which we are obviously moving is provide the user with no means of contacting you what so ever.
You can then claim the training is available and of course no one can disprove you or for that matter gain the benefit.
It must be a bit like EASA - dont provide the users with any means of contacting them by telehone and then you can be certain the number of complaints you receive will half. The perfect solution towards which we are obviously moving is provide the user with no means of contacting you what so ever.
You can then claim the training is available and of course no one can disprove you or for that matter gain the benefit.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 20th Jun 2006 at 10:26.
