Infringement of .. .. .. ..
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
IO540 said (among other things)
What's that when it's at home?
Both of the non moving map GPS I have used in the past (Garmin 12XL and Magellan 315) had the capability of navigating using aviation waypoints, showing your position relative to trackline, off-track error, ETA at next waypoint, distance to run, groundpeed etc.
Indeed an option on the 315 was a Jeppeson aviation databse you could upload into it and it ws sold, with this database bundled as the 320, for aviation use.
like VOR/DME you mean?
My GPSMAP 196 is less demanding to use, maybe that's a temptation to push the putton and go rather than properly plan what you want to do, which is necessary with the more basic GPS. (Just playing devil's advocate here
)
Mike
the mag track is pointless
Both of the non moving map GPS I have used in the past (Garmin 12XL and Magellan 315) had the capability of navigating using aviation waypoints, showing your position relative to trackline, off-track error, ETA at next waypoint, distance to run, groundpeed etc.
Indeed an option on the 315 was a Jeppeson aviation databse you could upload into it and it ws sold, with this database bundled as the 320, for aviation use.
position relative to some user-defined waypoint is an accident looking for a place to happen
My GPSMAP 196 is less demanding to use, maybe that's a temptation to push the putton and go rather than properly plan what you want to do, which is necessary with the more basic GPS. (Just playing devil's advocate here
)Mike
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I just don't buy the argument (one of the most common in aviation) that if you deprive a pilot of equipment which would assist him in operating an aircraft, thus forcing him to revert to "more traditional means", he will exercise "better airmanship" and be a safer pilot.
Gosh, it's been a long time since I have used so many phrases out of the CAA safety sense leaflets
I should get a medal.
I think there is one reason (and very few others) why we have such a backward training syllabus: the flight training industry doesn't want to spend any money on equipment, and doesn't want anything that will make the PPL look any more expensive on their price list.
There isn't anybody around who is the least bothered whether a new PPL holder is capable of doing anything whatsoever.
I suppose NATS definitely are bothered about infringements but they are a long way down the chain.
like VOR/DME you mean?
I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)
Gosh, it's been a long time since I have used so many phrases out of the CAA safety sense leaflets
I should get a medal.I think there is one reason (and very few others) why we have such a backward training syllabus: the flight training industry doesn't want to spend any money on equipment, and doesn't want anything that will make the PPL look any more expensive on their price list.
There isn't anybody around who is the least bothered whether a new PPL holder is capable of doing anything whatsoever.
I suppose NATS definitely are bothered about infringements but they are a long way down the chain.
like VOR/DME you mean?
I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Not disagreeing with you, however.......
I would rather the PPL came out with a good knowledge of the fundamentals of flying in daytime VFR, coupled with a healthy understanding of his own limitations. Teaching GPS to people who can't navigate properly using DR and eyeball is not the answer.
The syllabus and the number of exams has grown since I did mine. Has it made for safer pilots? I don't think so.
People infringe for two reasons:-
1.They don't know that they shouldn't be where they are.
or
2. They don't know that they are where they are.
Arguments about GPS or for that matter any radio based navaid are irrelevent to the syllabus for basic daytime VFR IMHO.
There is a very good argument for post-PPL training. Irv Lee has a very good approach to it and the biennial flight with an instructor is also an ideal opportunity (once you evade the people who think it should include the LPC requirements).
The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.
I would rather the PPL came out with a good knowledge of the fundamentals of flying in daytime VFR, coupled with a healthy understanding of his own limitations. Teaching GPS to people who can't navigate properly using DR and eyeball is not the answer.
The syllabus and the number of exams has grown since I did mine. Has it made for safer pilots? I don't think so.
People infringe for two reasons:-
1.They don't know that they shouldn't be where they are.
or
2. They don't know that they are where they are.
Arguments about GPS or for that matter any radio based navaid are irrelevent to the syllabus for basic daytime VFR IMHO.
There is a very good argument for post-PPL training. Irv Lee has a very good approach to it and the biennial flight with an instructor is also an ideal opportunity (once you evade the people who think it should include the LPC requirements).
The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: UK
like VOR/DME you mean?
I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)
I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)
Last week I flew from Cambridge to Lydd via the corridor between Luton and Stansted. I wouldn't dream of navigating through there by DR alone. There are so many variables and between Royston and Hertford, very few features. I tracked the 012R from BPK and felt comfortable knowing that I was a safe distance from both CTA/CTR boundaries.
Yes, this was only a back up to visual navigation, but a very useful one!
And NO, it does not mean that you have to stare at the CDI! Do a full scan for traffic, glance at the CDI and then eyes back outside, simple!
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
"Equipment that distracts him from looking where he's going?"
I dont know how much in "fun" your comments were
but I just dont buy that part of your comment - and it is a comment often made.
In my view there is no means of navigation that keeps your head out of the cockpit more than a moving map, if it is used correctly.
Visual navigation means you spend sometime looking at the ground, map and other instruments and inevitably detracts from a good scan.
The same is far less true of "IFR" navigation which in terms of eyes outside the cockpit is probably as good as using a GPS in VMC conditions.
With a good moving map only the occasional glance is required followed by a brief review that the picture outside corresponds with the picture on the map.
With respect I often feel that those who make this remark have not been taught or do not regularly use a moving map GPS.
I dont know how much in "fun" your comments were
but I just dont buy that part of your comment - and it is a comment often made.In my view there is no means of navigation that keeps your head out of the cockpit more than a moving map, if it is used correctly.
Visual navigation means you spend sometime looking at the ground, map and other instruments and inevitably detracts from a good scan.
The same is far less true of "IFR" navigation which in terms of eyes outside the cockpit is probably as good as using a GPS in VMC conditions.
With a good moving map only the occasional glance is required followed by a brief review that the picture outside corresponds with the picture on the map.
With respect I often feel that those who make this remark have not been taught or do not regularly use a moving map GPS.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Mike
The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.
IMV, the reason these things never take off (and I have been to Irv's courses a few years back) is that the pilot doesn't get any privileges as a result. So why should he bother? I once went on a 1-day GPS course, run by Honeywell, and nobody else turned up. Etc.
Compare this with gliding. I don't glide (well I hope I never have to ) but I gather they run a system comprising of a string of grades, so there is a continual incentive for people to keep improving.
There are just two reasonably accessible post-PPL "grades": the night and the IMC rating. The first is crippled by most airports closing early, and the 2nd is crippled (mainly, IMV) by non-availability of half-decent planes for rental.
WR
For IFR flight, by definition you're head inside the cockpit
Do you have a reference for that? Actually, the great majority of IFR flight is in VMC. That is the #1 planning objective; the alternatives involve potential continued flight in icing, etc. And anytime you are in VMC you are supposed to keep a lookout - even under IFR/airways.
I don't know why so many people think that anything to do with IFR means looking down and fiddling with knobs One actually does very little of that. IFR nav techniques are absolutely brill for VFR flight. I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test, have never been lost, never been uncertain of position, never infringed (as far as I know). GPS is a part of that, only a part. Even dialling in a VOR/DME makes a dramatic difference to navigation confidence.
The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.
IMV, the reason these things never take off (and I have been to Irv's courses a few years back) is that the pilot doesn't get any privileges as a result. So why should he bother? I once went on a 1-day GPS course, run by Honeywell, and nobody else turned up. Etc.
Compare this with gliding. I don't glide (well I hope I never have to
) but I gather they run a system comprising of a string of grades, so there is a continual incentive for people to keep improving.There are just two reasonably accessible post-PPL "grades": the night and the IMC rating. The first is crippled by most airports closing early, and the 2nd is crippled (mainly, IMV) by non-availability of half-decent planes for rental.
WR
For IFR flight, by definition you're head inside the cockpit
Do you have a reference for that?
Actually, the great majority of IFR flight is in VMC. That is the #1 planning objective; the alternatives involve potential continued flight in icing, etc. And anytime you are in VMC you are supposed to keep a lookout - even under IFR/airways.I don't know why so many people think that anything to do with IFR means looking down and fiddling with knobs
One actually does very little of that. IFR nav techniques are absolutely brill for VFR flight. I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test, have never been lost, never been uncertain of position, never infringed (as far as I know). GPS is a part of that, only a part. Even dialling in a VOR/DME makes a dramatic difference to navigation confidence.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
IO450
“I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test”
This explains a lot! I have been using DR for 15 years, I use GPS & VOR as a backup but I will fly with just DR and I to have not knowingly infringed CAS. DR is a proven and effective navigation tool, but you have to work at it and give it a chance!
Rod1
“I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test”
This explains a lot! I have been using DR for 15 years, I use GPS & VOR as a backup but I will fly with just DR and I to have not knowingly infringed CAS. DR is a proven and effective navigation tool, but you have to work at it and give it a chance!
Rod1
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
WR,
This assumes of course that you are not trying to refold your map, plot your new course - after of course working evrything out on your whizz wheel, by then you may get chance to look outside to realise you are in a spiral dive.....
Seriously, as I have said before, at stude PPL level I agree that they should all know how to read a map, DR, plot diversions, etc. Once they have their PPL then show them GPS, it doesnt matter if you are fling VFR or IFR - the GPS doesnt know!
Personally I use a panel mount GNS430 onto which I my preloaded flight plan alongside an AvMap EKPIIIC for backup. I cross check my GPS and MAP every few mins just in case it happens to go down - which it never has done yet.
All my preflight planning it done on either the laptop or the EKP and then transferred to the map afterwards. In addition to the FP it gives me runways, freqs, avgas avaliability, etc.
GPS is an incredibly useful tool and I just dont buy the idea that anyone using them is a "danger", "head in cockpit", "continually busting CAS more frequently than us gud 'ole map boys".
If you want to nav by map alone then great, no one is stopping you but it doesnt make the rest of us evil.
J.
This assumes of course that you are not trying to refold your map, plot your new course - after of course working evrything out on your whizz wheel, by then you may get chance to look outside to realise you are in a spiral dive.....
Seriously, as I have said before, at stude PPL level I agree that they should all know how to read a map, DR, plot diversions, etc. Once they have their PPL then show them GPS, it doesnt matter if you are fling VFR or IFR - the GPS doesnt know!
Personally I use a panel mount GNS430 onto which I my preloaded flight plan alongside an AvMap EKPIIIC for backup. I cross check my GPS and MAP every few mins just in case it happens to go down - which it never has done yet.
All my preflight planning it done on either the laptop or the EKP and then transferred to the map afterwards. In addition to the FP it gives me runways, freqs, avgas avaliability, etc.
GPS is an incredibly useful tool and I just dont buy the idea that anyone using them is a "danger", "head in cockpit", "continually busting CAS more frequently than us gud 'ole map boys".
If you want to nav by map alone then great, no one is stopping you but it doesnt make the rest of us evil.
J.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
WR - Its for anyone who views GPS users as pilots who..
If you want to spend your Sunday afternoon chasing after a symbol of an a/c on a computerized display whilst you squark along then fine. I'll take the chance that you won't ram me up my @rse while I keep a good lookout in front of me, and you'll have to take the chance you don't ram me up my @rse while you're RASing along in VMC playing with your wotnots.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
I just don't buy the argument (one of the most common in aviation) that if you deprive a pilot of equipment which would assist him in operating an aircraft, thus forcing him to revert to "more traditional means", he will exercise "better airmanship" and be a safer pilot.
Incidently, if technology worked on its own, then there wouldn't have been the 18% of incursion incidents which happened with the benefit of moving map GPS. In other words, technology or otherwise is not the answer, it is the attitude of the pilot.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: UK
[QUOTE=IO540]
My experience is that some PPLs I have met havent got the faintest clue about what class A or class D airspace means or what it looks like on a half mil chart
That is hard to believe. The airspace is labelled, with clear numbers. QUOTE]
Hard to believe for you maybe IO540, but I can asure you that this is the case.
Example:
When asked to plan a NAV trip from A to B, these students will plot a line right through class A airspace or base of an airway and they dont realise what they've done, they dont even think its illegal to do this when asked!!
Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain.
My experience is that some PPLs I have met havent got the faintest clue about what class A or class D airspace means or what it looks like on a half mil chart
That is hard to believe. The airspace is labelled, with clear numbers. QUOTE]
Hard to believe for you maybe IO540, but I can asure you that this is the case.
Example:
When asked to plan a NAV trip from A to B, these students will plot a line right through class A airspace or base of an airway and they dont realise what they've done, they dont even think its illegal to do this when asked!!
Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
Quote
"Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain."
Yep he's right - I do it all the time! (well apart from the into cloud part - I'm not brave enough (or have too much imagination!)). But the point of this facile comment is to say that I do it in areas where the mountains are pretty high and VFR flight would otherwise be pretty difficult.
Picking the right glen to enter is however very important and aids like GPS make these decisions much more reliable!
The reason many people are poor pilots is the whole environment of aviation is slightly alien - there are skills that need to be mastered and mistakes which in the majority of case will go underdetected until it gets nasty. One of the drunken phrases I have for friends who ask is that 'flying is terrific fun but pretty nasty when you get it wrong' - but that only really kicks in when you get it very wrong!
There is a natural tendency for specialist groups to have their own language, behaviours and other shared systems. Flying has this in abundance. How much of it is really needed? I'm not sure, but a large amount of it is steeped in historical aspects and not actually based on any rational assessment.
I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue.
We can have all the learned discussions we like, right the world as much as we like - we would however probably be better employed in some constructive coaching.
How often have we actually intervened and made a positive contribution? I've done it a few times - and felt better about myself and the others as a result.
This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.
The next time you see people asking or struggling with the silly coded information systems we have or real practical go, no go decisions - help them!!!!!
Don't start a discussion thread ' I can't believe what plonkers hold a PPL'. Help them, answer their questions and leave them better people..
The devices we use have a variety of strengths and weaknesses, I doubt there is a person alive who can access all the functions and capabilities of a GN430. Equally I'm sure there are subutlities of the 1:500000 that I am unaware of. All of them work and all of them don't work. Depends on who, where and when.
I've been flying for 16 years and I've not stopped learning, sometimes that really scares me - did I really know so little when I first ......
Obviously I did!
So don't start forum threads, inform, help, coach. Then we can all be as clever as youo evidently are!
Too much to ask?
"Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain."
Yep he's right - I do it all the time! (well apart from the into cloud part - I'm not brave enough (or have too much imagination!)). But the point of this facile comment is to say that I do it in areas where the mountains are pretty high and VFR flight would otherwise be pretty difficult.
Picking the right glen to enter is however very important and aids like GPS make these decisions much more reliable!
The reason many people are poor pilots is the whole environment of aviation is slightly alien - there are skills that need to be mastered and mistakes which in the majority of case will go underdetected until it gets nasty. One of the drunken phrases I have for friends who ask is that 'flying is terrific fun but pretty nasty when you get it wrong' - but that only really kicks in when you get it very wrong!
There is a natural tendency for specialist groups to have their own language, behaviours and other shared systems. Flying has this in abundance. How much of it is really needed? I'm not sure, but a large amount of it is steeped in historical aspects and not actually based on any rational assessment.
I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue.
We can have all the learned discussions we like, right the world as much as we like - we would however probably be better employed in some constructive coaching.
How often have we actually intervened and made a positive contribution? I've done it a few times - and felt better about myself and the others as a result.
This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.
The next time you see people asking or struggling with the silly coded information systems we have or real practical go, no go decisions - help them!!!!!
Don't start a discussion thread ' I can't believe what plonkers hold a PPL'. Help them, answer their questions and leave them better people..
The devices we use have a variety of strengths and weaknesses, I doubt there is a person alive who can access all the functions and capabilities of a GN430. Equally I'm sure there are subutlities of the 1:500000 that I am unaware of. All of them work and all of them don't work. Depends on who, where and when.
I've been flying for 16 years and I've not stopped learning, sometimes that really scares me - did I really know so little when I first ......
Obviously I did!
So don't start forum threads, inform, help, coach. Then we can all be as clever as youo evidently are!
Too much to ask?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
gasax
I agree with you, and I think a number of people have already made the point, forcefully enough, that training is largely to blame.
One could do what you call coaching but the reality is that not a lot of people turn up. Irv Lee has been running a sort of post-PPL course for some years; it's good basic common sense VFR-PPL-level stuff but my recollection is that few of the people that turned up really benefitted. Those who would benefit won't come. And the pilot gets zero privileges in return for his £100 or whatever.
Also a lot of pilots, probably the majority, operate outside the environment in which any coaching might be promoted. Who is going to be dropping flyers around the countless grass strips that so many people are based at?
Also there is so much patronising bull***t written by various "authoritative" sources that anyone attempting education has to steer a very fine line.
The only thing that would make any difference, IMHO, is a complete overhaul of the PPL training syllabus. Take out the WW2 cr*p, take out the daft irrelevant ground school questions, add in the stuff pilots need to know to fly around. Have an oral exam before the checkride, to pickup those who haven't got a clue and any blatent cheats, and make sure everybody knows the basics at least. IOW, more like the FAA PPL! Chuck out all the useless instructors, too. This will never happen.
This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.
If you refer to the flyer.co.uk forum, from what I can see looking in there occassionally, that place is a private drinking saloon inhabited by a few good knowledgeable people and the rest are a bunch of righteous farts who are clearly bored and generate 10,000+ posts in no time at all without ever writing anything that contributes to aviation knowledge. A lot of pilot behaviour gets severely taken apart on there, in long threads full of meaningless 1- and 2-liners, but few posters say how it could be done better (and that very sadly includes some who I know do know the answers).
I agree with you, and I think a number of people have already made the point, forcefully enough, that training is largely to blame.
One could do what you call coaching but the reality is that not a lot of people turn up. Irv Lee has been running a sort of post-PPL course for some years; it's good basic common sense VFR-PPL-level stuff but my recollection is that few of the people that turned up really benefitted. Those who would benefit won't come. And the pilot gets zero privileges in return for his £100 or whatever.
Also a lot of pilots, probably the majority, operate outside the environment in which any coaching might be promoted. Who is going to be dropping flyers around the countless grass strips that so many people are based at?
Also there is so much patronising bull***t written by various "authoritative" sources that anyone attempting education has to steer a very fine line.
The only thing that would make any difference, IMHO, is a complete overhaul of the PPL training syllabus. Take out the WW2 cr*p, take out the daft irrelevant ground school questions, add in the stuff pilots need to know to fly around. Have an oral exam before the checkride, to pickup those who haven't got a clue and any blatent cheats, and make sure everybody knows the basics at least. IOW, more like the FAA PPL! Chuck out all the useless instructors, too. This will never happen.
This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.
If you refer to the flyer.co.uk forum, from what I can see looking in there occassionally, that place is a private drinking saloon inhabited by a few good knowledgeable people and the rest are a bunch of righteous farts who are clearly bored and generate 10,000+ posts in no time at all without ever writing anything that contributes to aviation knowledge. A lot of pilot behaviour gets severely taken apart on there, in long threads full of meaningless 1- and 2-liners, but few posters say how it could be done better (and that very sadly includes some who I know do know the answers).
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: UK
gasax, I hope you werent refering to me in your post. 
The examples I have posted here are facts based on my experience as an instructor. They are not intended as anything other that an illustration of the knowledge and attitudes of some GA pilots out there. Iam not saying they are all like that, far from it. The truth hurts, and Im sure many other instructors can provide similar examples.
I stated in a previous post that I teach to beyond what is expected of me, I give up many evenings to teach theory and flight safety to PPLs in the hope that some day, that knowledge may save their life or keep them out of trouble, so please do not accuse me of sitting back and not contributing towards flight safety. I never mentioned anything about being clever, I have high standards and I expect my students to adopt the same attitude towards flying!
"I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue".
A very good point you make about the system allowing them to fly, thats partly the issue I believe.
Unfortunatly, many student PPLs enjoy the flying aspect of the course but when it comes to the ground exams, try to avoid them like the plaig. Its "generally" a struggle to get them to study. Yes we all hate exams but I think its about having the right attitude towards flying which will ultimately dictate how safe and competent a pilot will be.
Back on topic, there is a simple question which begs to be asked, "Why do we have so many airspace infringements?"
Does anyone know the answer?
The examples I have posted here are facts based on my experience as an instructor. They are not intended as anything other that an illustration of the knowledge and attitudes of some GA pilots out there. Iam not saying they are all like that, far from it. The truth hurts, and Im sure many other instructors can provide similar examples.
I stated in a previous post that I teach to beyond what is expected of me, I give up many evenings to teach theory and flight safety to PPLs in the hope that some day, that knowledge may save their life or keep them out of trouble, so please do not accuse me of sitting back and not contributing towards flight safety. I never mentioned anything about being clever, I have high standards and I expect my students to adopt the same attitude towards flying!
"I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue".
A very good point you make about the system allowing them to fly, thats partly the issue I believe.
Unfortunatly, many student PPLs enjoy the flying aspect of the course but when it comes to the ground exams, try to avoid them like the plaig. Its "generally" a struggle to get them to study. Yes we all hate exams but I think its about having the right attitude towards flying which will ultimately dictate how safe and competent a pilot will be.
Back on topic, there is a simple question which begs to be asked, "Why do we have so many airspace infringements?"
Does anyone know the answer?
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Cambridgeshire
Oh what!!
Been a PPL -IMC holder now for 13 years and it scares me what been written on this thread! Even in local area sightseeing I work out a route/timings/fuel, ok have a black and white GPS on standby. Im an ATC and the amount of peeps i here going im 15.25miles from your Overhead......grrrr try it without a GPS. A few cant tell the difference between airspace as wel!! A to B lines great!! Ok i understand technology is great but when it goes wrong? U have to have a plan! I remember flying in Norfolk and me mates GPS didnt have a signal....flatest place in UK lol
