VFR navigation question
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that it would be allowed? But at this stage I really don't think it's a good idea anyway! I know all the arguments about GPS being the way forward ect, but I still think you really do need to learn the basic traditional skills first. They've served many of us very well for many years and can always be trusted as a back up to GPS if that is the way you eventually decide to go. If you carry a GPS at your stage of training, the temptation will be to use it and never really learn or have faith in traditional nav methods.
SS
SS
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In the shadows
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Bear
The key skills in learning air navigation are situational awareness and planning. Planning can be dealt with later as you progress through your syllabus. Situational awareness can be worked on now. Earlier posts have recommended that you learn ‘key’ features in your local area; this is definitely the way forward.
To help build up your air picture, or ‘situational awareness’, give yourself a challenge: every 10-15mins, when you carry out your Ts & Ps check, try to identify your position from known ground features. Check with your instructor that you are correct, then give him the approximate bearing and distance from your home airfield. In the event that you are not immediately adjacent to a feature you know, but still in sight of one, try to estimate your position with reference to it, e.g., 5nm NW of the reservoir. Thinking in terms of range (in nm) and compass bearing is a good habit to get into early. You will find that this will help you build up a mental picture of your local area and help with your position reporting to ATC.
It is important that you choose features that work for you as everybody’s brain is wired differently. After you land, go over your route with your instructor using a scale of map that you would normally use (1/4 mil probably) for flying, and try to relate the features you saw to the map. Try this every time you go flying and you’ll soon get the hang of it. You can even practise this when out in the car and you see one of your features. When you get a chance, check it against your map. It all helps to reinforce the mental picture.
Remember that a good pilot is rarely lost but only temporarily unaware of his position. However, a great pilot is quick to realize when he is lost and is equally quick to admit it!
Good luck
GM
The key skills in learning air navigation are situational awareness and planning. Planning can be dealt with later as you progress through your syllabus. Situational awareness can be worked on now. Earlier posts have recommended that you learn ‘key’ features in your local area; this is definitely the way forward.
To help build up your air picture, or ‘situational awareness’, give yourself a challenge: every 10-15mins, when you carry out your Ts & Ps check, try to identify your position from known ground features. Check with your instructor that you are correct, then give him the approximate bearing and distance from your home airfield. In the event that you are not immediately adjacent to a feature you know, but still in sight of one, try to estimate your position with reference to it, e.g., 5nm NW of the reservoir. Thinking in terms of range (in nm) and compass bearing is a good habit to get into early. You will find that this will help you build up a mental picture of your local area and help with your position reporting to ATC.
It is important that you choose features that work for you as everybody’s brain is wired differently. After you land, go over your route with your instructor using a scale of map that you would normally use (1/4 mil probably) for flying, and try to relate the features you saw to the map. Try this every time you go flying and you’ll soon get the hang of it. You can even practise this when out in the car and you see one of your features. When you get a chance, check it against your map. It all helps to reinforce the mental picture.
Remember that a good pilot is rarely lost but only temporarily unaware of his position. However, a great pilot is quick to realize when he is lost and is equally quick to admit it!
Good luck
GM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you can, go to a seminar, that the royal institute of navigation run, very interesting, in a nut shell, every single person who spoke, summed it up with,
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, Ont, Canada
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
As other have said, with my limited experience flying the plane requires 100% of my meagre brain-power, so I have little left for navigation. But I'm not really trying to navigate, as such; merely to recognize things in my local area. I have been surprised how difficult that is for me. Yesterday I flew over what ought to have been a highly distinctive landmark -- a 300-ft tall windmill. I can recognize it from miles away on the ground, but in the air I didn't spot it until it was pointed out to me. I found this rather disconcerting.
I fly out of Elstree, and there are two (maybe more) VRPs marked on the chart within a few minutes flight. I really can't imagine that I would have recognized either of them from the air had they not been pointed out to me. Without being shown, I would have had absolutely no idea what a golf couse looks like from the air. I'm not sure how I would cope with recognizing VRPs I've never seen before.
I've tried Google Earth but, for far as I can tell, it can only view from directly above (unless other people know different). What I see out of the cockpit doesn't look the same. Maybe I can make the adjustment with practice, or maybe you have to have some built-in image processing skill that I lack.
As for GPS: I appreciate that this may be the wrong place for a moan but, when I started flying, it appalled me that GPS wasn't a standard part of training and of navigation examinations. I would have thought by now that a GPS unit would have been as essential a piece of cockpit equipment as a magnetic compass, and use of GPS an essential skill. It's not even particularly expensive. Of course a GPS unit can fail, but so can any other piece of equipment. Moan over
As other have said, with my limited experience flying the plane requires 100% of my meagre brain-power, so I have little left for navigation. But I'm not really trying to navigate, as such; merely to recognize things in my local area. I have been surprised how difficult that is for me. Yesterday I flew over what ought to have been a highly distinctive landmark -- a 300-ft tall windmill. I can recognize it from miles away on the ground, but in the air I didn't spot it until it was pointed out to me. I found this rather disconcerting.
I fly out of Elstree, and there are two (maybe more) VRPs marked on the chart within a few minutes flight. I really can't imagine that I would have recognized either of them from the air had they not been pointed out to me. Without being shown, I would have had absolutely no idea what a golf couse looks like from the air. I'm not sure how I would cope with recognizing VRPs I've never seen before.
I've tried Google Earth but, for far as I can tell, it can only view from directly above (unless other people know different). What I see out of the cockpit doesn't look the same. Maybe I can make the adjustment with practice, or maybe you have to have some built-in image processing skill that I lack.
As for GPS: I appreciate that this may be the wrong place for a moan but, when I started flying, it appalled me that GPS wasn't a standard part of training and of navigation examinations. I would have thought by now that a GPS unit would have been as essential a piece of cockpit equipment as a magnetic compass, and use of GPS an essential skill. It's not even particularly expensive. Of course a GPS unit can fail, but so can any other piece of equipment. Moan over
You can "tilt" the GoogleEarth map with MMB or using the "tilt view" controls. It's pretty cool, and is the ultimate "VFR flight simulator !" If you press CTR-G you can then "fly" the map using RMB-drag-up to speed up, RMB-drag-back to slow down, and LMB-drag-down / up to "pull" and 'push' the "control wheel"
You can also set markers and save images, turn on legends and names of roads and landmarks, it's a great learning aid.I just "flew" over to your field with GE, and see that you have a large lake and a predominant highway near to the airport.
You also have two VOR's close by, BPK, BNN and it looks like the airport is on the intersetion of the BPK 238l, BNN 119 radials.
I see there's a large golf complex about 3mi SW of your field, and a smaller one to the SE. I love spotting golf courses from the air or even from G.E.
As for GPS, if you're plane has one, learn it, and take advantage of it, along with VOR, ADF, pilotage, d.r., maps, ATC and any other aid to orient yourself.
Mike
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you can, go to a seminar, that the royal institute of navigation run, very interesting, in a nut shell, every single person who spoke, summed it up with,
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !
Never in the history of navigation is so much bo11ocks spoken by so few to so many as in a lecture by the RNI. I've been to one of them; the old boy spent an hour explaining what a DOP was...
What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.
Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.
But the most amazing thing is who finances these wonderful olde English institutes, with their grand buildings in London full of old master paintings of their past famous chaps dressed up in fancy coats and collars and stockings and high heeled shoes (they'd do OK in certain bars in Brighton which I have dropped into by mistake) ... all the way back to Isaac Newton (who was truly brilliant).
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !
Never in the history of navigation is so much bo11ocks spoken by so few to so many as in a lecture by the RNI. I've been to one of them; the old boy spent an hour explaining what a DOP was...
What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.
Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.
But the most amazing thing is who finances these wonderful olde English institutes, with their grand buildings in London full of old master paintings of their past famous chaps dressed up in fancy coats and collars and stockings and high heeled shoes (they'd do OK in certain bars in Brighton which I have dropped into by mistake) ... all the way back to Isaac Newton (who was truly brilliant).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For fear of sounding like an anorak (or something even less polite) I can highly recommend Microsoft FS2004 and the UK VFR Photographic Scenery. I am currently at the NAV stage in the PPL and use the above software to practise NAV flights before I fly them for real.
I draw up the route on my 1/2 mil map, fill in the VFR nav log as for real and then "fly" the route in FS2004. You can even add "real weather" if you are so inclined (invariably being in the UK the weather is
so it's easier to dial in "clear skies" and just practise spotting the landmarks from 2000ft!)
Doing it this way has helped to familiarize me with our local training area and get a good idea of what VRPs look like from altitude especially on the longer legs to unfamiliar airfields.
FS2004 CANNOT replicate such things as density altitude airspeed differences or magnetic (or compass) variation. However as a basic tool for familiarizing yourself with your local area from altitude I find it an excellent tool.
Regards
Andy
I draw up the route on my 1/2 mil map, fill in the VFR nav log as for real and then "fly" the route in FS2004. You can even add "real weather" if you are so inclined (invariably being in the UK the weather is
so it's easier to dial in "clear skies" and just practise spotting the landmarks from 2000ft!)Doing it this way has helped to familiarize me with our local training area and get a good idea of what VRPs look like from altitude especially on the longer legs to unfamiliar airfields.
FS2004 CANNOT replicate such things as density altitude airspeed differences or magnetic (or compass) variation. However as a basic tool for familiarizing yourself with your local area from altitude I find it an excellent tool.
Regards
Andy
<snip>
What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.
Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.
<snip>
What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.
Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.
<snip>
I recall in 2001 coming south from East Fortune in August when it failed - I think it was MoD jamming testing. My mate as PIC had a total brain failure - "what do I do now?". "How about continue on the same heading and look at the map?" "What heading were we on?"!!!
In IFR you expect, and practice for, failure of various systems. The difference is that there are lots of people without IRs who use GPS as their primary and ONLY navigation means, and forget their spare batteries (etc).
Where is the evidence of this? Amongst the 200-odd zone infringements mentioned in this years GASCO summary, how many were due to GPS failure? (Answer = none)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always the assumption that everybody without a GPS is practicing proper airmanship, whereas everybody with a GPS is a d***head who is relying on it totally and goes hysterical when the batteries run out.
"Baby" and "bathwater" comes to mind here.
I am going to get jumped on by the usual people for defending GPS but I am going to keep doing it, in the proper context.
There are good pilots who fly without a GPS and there are awful pilots who fly with a GPS. There are pilots who go for a flight without a physical fuel check (I used to during my entire high-wing PPL training; doing what I was told: check the tech log, it's good enough); lots of people don't check weather, or don't understand much about it, etc.
BUT, as I've written before, I don't actually think GPS is the real issue. After all, who cares how somebody else navigates? If somebody out there is flying with a sextant, it's 100% their business. Or dipping down to 499ft to read the motorway signs, as the bar proppers often claim to do. I think this subject is a constant hot potato because a mention of GPS very reliably triggers the traditionalist v. modernist (moderniser?) debate, which is a hot potato in UK GA.
Why modernisation should be such a hot potato, I am not sure. I have heard sentiments at a certain airfield which was going to put in an ILS, from "grass roots" pilots who feared the place will go commercial, prices will go up, and they will be priced out of it. Perhaps this is the real driver in all this.
The CAA doesn't help at all. Education, rather than muck spreading, would be a good idea. If they spent as much time into educating about GPS as they spend slagging it off and collating airspace bust data, we would be ahead.
Carrying a GPS (which you know how to use) on a pre-PPL solo x/c flight.... hmmm, not sure. Safety wise it is an excellent idea and I am sure many have done it. After all, if you mess up really badly, get totally lost and run out of fuel before you can find a runway, you are risking wrecking the plane in a forced landing. I think there is about a 10% chance of a forced landing going very badly but that figure covers experienced pilots as well. During my training, one student vanished on his x/c. Everybody in charge was tearing their hair out, and were doing so doubly five hours later when it was obvious his fuel must have run out. The poor instructor was sweating rather a lot. Eventually the pilot contacted the school; he got totally lost and flew randomly all over S England until he found a runway, and landed on it (somewhere in Kent). Even a good field landing is probably recoverable only with a trailer, which is a few grand. BUT.... if anybody finds out that you carried a GPS, you could be in serious trouble. I won't express a view on this either way. It's actually highly likely that a student will not be sent on a x/c unless the weather is perfect, guaranteed perfect, and there are really really obvious landmarks to follow, and the route is very simple and well away from controlled airspace. The instructor can't take the risk.
"Baby" and "bathwater" comes to mind here.
I am going to get jumped on by the usual people for defending GPS but I am going to keep doing it, in the proper context.
There are good pilots who fly without a GPS and there are awful pilots who fly with a GPS. There are pilots who go for a flight without a physical fuel check (I used to during my entire high-wing PPL training; doing what I was told: check the tech log, it's good enough); lots of people don't check weather, or don't understand much about it, etc.
BUT, as I've written before, I don't actually think GPS is the real issue. After all, who cares how somebody else navigates? If somebody out there is flying with a sextant, it's 100% their business. Or dipping down to 499ft to read the motorway signs, as the bar proppers often claim to do. I think this subject is a constant hot potato because a mention of GPS very reliably triggers the traditionalist v. modernist (moderniser?) debate, which is a hot potato in UK GA.
Why modernisation should be such a hot potato, I am not sure. I have heard sentiments at a certain airfield which was going to put in an ILS, from "grass roots" pilots who feared the place will go commercial, prices will go up, and they will be priced out of it. Perhaps this is the real driver in all this.
The CAA doesn't help at all. Education, rather than muck spreading, would be a good idea. If they spent as much time into educating about GPS as they spend slagging it off and collating airspace bust data, we would be ahead.
Carrying a GPS (which you know how to use) on a pre-PPL solo x/c flight.... hmmm, not sure. Safety wise it is an excellent idea and I am sure many have done it. After all, if you mess up really badly, get totally lost and run out of fuel before you can find a runway, you are risking wrecking the plane in a forced landing. I think there is about a 10% chance of a forced landing going very badly but that figure covers experienced pilots as well. During my training, one student vanished on his x/c. Everybody in charge was tearing their hair out, and were doing so doubly five hours later when it was obvious his fuel must have run out. The poor instructor was sweating rather a lot. Eventually the pilot contacted the school; he got totally lost and flew randomly all over S England until he found a runway, and landed on it (somewhere in Kent). Even a good field landing is probably recoverable only with a trailer, which is a few grand. BUT.... if anybody finds out that you carried a GPS, you could be in serious trouble. I won't express a view on this either way. It's actually highly likely that a student will not be sent on a x/c unless the weather is perfect, guaranteed perfect, and there are really really obvious landmarks to follow, and the route is very simple and well away from controlled airspace. The instructor can't take the risk.
Last edited by IO540; 5th Oct 2006 at 12:21.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS 4 pilotage 0
Fell off my chair laughing at the one about the old boys at the Royal Navigational Institute! Hilarious!
C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.
Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!
The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.
Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.
I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.
All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!
Bygones etc...
SB
C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.
Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!
The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.
Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.
I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.
All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!
Bygones etc...
SB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fell off my chair laughing at the one about the old boys at the Royal Navigational Institute! Hilarious!
C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.
Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!
The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.
Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.
I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.
All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!
Bygones etc...
SB
C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.
Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!
The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.
Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.
I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.
All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!
Bygones etc...
SB
just forget everything you have ever been taught, of course it will be ok,
I wouldn't fly with you. if it were offered for free, apoplexy, sure, it could, no, will save my and others lives one day.
oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh dear, what a great example, you set to new aviators, I doubt, that your engine, ever runs out of oil ! so why bother checking it, before every flight ?
just forget everything you have ever been taught, of course it will be ok,
I wouldn't fly with you. if it were offered for free, apoplexy, sure, it could, no, will save my and others lives one day.
oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray
just forget everything you have ever been taught, of course it will be ok,
I wouldn't fly with you. if it were offered for free, apoplexy, sure, it could, no, will save my and others lives one day.
oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray
SB
Guest
Posts: n/a
GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray
Primary, secondary, makes no difference. The basic emphasis of navigation is you sensibly use what data is available. If you are IFR, regardless of whether a TSO'd GPS is used or just using a VOR to track airway, you would be daft not to use NAV2 tuned to another VOR (or the same if unavailable). Why have an ADF not tuned to anything that will be or is within the DoC, etc.
The same goes for VFR, if you have a chart on your lap and you prefer DR, why not also switch on the GPS (if available) and cross-reference. If you use GPS, why not use the chart and eyeball pre-determined points. Which is primary and which is secondary? Who can say, I guess what is important is that the pilot has organised himself such that his work load is reduced and the chance of erring is reduced and the chance of picking up errors is increased. Simply saying GPS must not be used as a primary aid means very little IMHO.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think the magic of GPS navigation can lull one into being under-prepared for a trip (i.e. not have another plan - be it PLOG, line on chart, whatever) and if proper training was given in its use this risk could be reduced.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR
As I wrote, I don't concern myself with how someone else navigates, and I am pretty sure there is not one other pilot in the UK who actually cares how somebody else navigates.
(If I was a passenger in a some spamcan and the PIC was dead reckoning, I would carry a GPS and quietly watch it).
The thing which I genuinely think is worth questioning is why this subject results in such long debates.
The GPS thing itself is irrelevant - until one gets onto CAS busts and measures which are being introduced probably largely to counter those.
As I wrote, I don't concern myself with how someone else navigates, and I am pretty sure there is not one other pilot in the UK who actually cares how somebody else navigates.
(If I was a passenger in a some spamcan and the PIC was dead reckoning, I would carry a GPS and quietly watch it).
The thing which I genuinely think is worth questioning is why this subject results in such long debates.
The GPS thing itself is irrelevant - until one gets onto CAS busts and measures which are being introduced probably largely to counter those.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have said - one should be conversant with all available means and be able to fail over from one navigation technique to another. For Airways drivers though I would be surprised if anyone is actually working out radials and DME distances and programming them into their RNAV vs using their BRNAV GPS as the primary navigation system to get from intersection to intersection.
I do think the magic of GPS navigation can lull one into being under-prepared for a trip (i.e. not have another plan - be it PLOG, line on chart, whatever) and if proper training was given in its use this risk could be reduced.
I do think the magic of GPS navigation can lull one into being under-prepared for a trip (i.e. not have another plan - be it PLOG, line on chart, whatever) and if proper training was given in its use this risk could be reduced.
its only as good, as the person inputting the information
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR - we have been here before. The problem is the awful statistical analysis that has been done on data that was awfully unprofessionally collected in the first place. These people need to go to college, on an elementary stats course.
But, let's have a go...
Does anyone have a URL to the latest busts survey? I read one a few months ago. I have just done a quick google and found a 2003/5 one
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_5.pdf
which appears to be amazingly similar to the one I read.
The first thing that hits you is on page 12 (page 19 of the PDF) - 40.6% used a "GPS", 17.6% used a "moving map". What the hell is this supposed to mean? It means either the report was written by somebody who doesn't know what a GPS is, or 40.6% of the pilots used a non-moving map GPS (the kind you buy at Milletts, alongside your £25 tent and a £20 sleeping bag) which is truly awful since these give you little or no situational awareness.
To me, 17.6% of pilots using a moving map GPS sounds very low, given that the bulk of busts were done by pilots with 100-499 hours. These are not novices, especially given that perhaps 90% to 95% of PPL holders never ever make 100hrs. These are pilots who are hanging in there for the long term. I can't find data on pilot age or license age breakdown; if there was one, one could get an idea whether these are real old-timers or just more current pilots who have not been flying long but do a lot of hours. A pilot doing 200hrs/year all over the UK gets more exposure to the risk than one doing 10hrs/year locally.
On page 9 (16 of the PDF) it shows Stansted is the #1 place for busts. Why? On the chart, there is nothing about that airspace which is complicated or ambiguous. Also everybody knows that these airports are there somewhere. It just needs accurate nav especially if squeezing into the Luton/Stansted gap. Clearly, IMHO, plain old nav accuracy is the real issue here.
Anyway, one could take the whole thing to bits. Lots of categories of causes which don't really mean anything.
Curiously, on page 31, the report issues the stunning recommendation
CAA should issue training schools with a formal GPS initial training syllabus and issue course approval to FTOs
But, let's have a go...
Does anyone have a URL to the latest busts survey? I read one a few months ago. I have just done a quick google and found a 2003/5 one
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_5.pdf
which appears to be amazingly similar to the one I read.
The first thing that hits you is on page 12 (page 19 of the PDF) - 40.6% used a "GPS", 17.6% used a "moving map". What the hell is this supposed to mean? It means either the report was written by somebody who doesn't know what a GPS is, or 40.6% of the pilots used a non-moving map GPS (the kind you buy at Milletts, alongside your £25 tent and a £20 sleeping bag) which is truly awful since these give you little or no situational awareness.
To me, 17.6% of pilots using a moving map GPS sounds very low, given that the bulk of busts were done by pilots with 100-499 hours. These are not novices, especially given that perhaps 90% to 95% of PPL holders never ever make 100hrs. These are pilots who are hanging in there for the long term. I can't find data on pilot age or license age breakdown; if there was one, one could get an idea whether these are real old-timers or just more current pilots who have not been flying long but do a lot of hours. A pilot doing 200hrs/year all over the UK gets more exposure to the risk than one doing 10hrs/year locally.
On page 9 (16 of the PDF) it shows Stansted is the #1 place for busts. Why? On the chart, there is nothing about that airspace which is complicated or ambiguous. Also everybody knows that these airports are there somewhere. It just needs accurate nav especially if squeezing into the Luton/Stansted gap. Clearly, IMHO, plain old nav accuracy is the real issue here.
Anyway, one could take the whole thing to bits. Lots of categories of causes which don't really mean anything.
Curiously, on page 31, the report issues the stunning recommendation
CAA should issue training schools with a formal GPS initial training syllabus and issue course approval to FTOs
.
Hilariously, on page 29 it says
Poor database accuracy. This is either due to incorrect depiction or the absence of some CAS boundaries. American databases do not appear to cater for every UK airspace category. Moreover, the onus is on the pilot to maintain database currency by purchasing updates from the manufacturer. Manufacturers are reportedly reluctant to reveal detail of their updates, and no open forum exists to publicise any shortcomings. Formal CAA equipment and database compliance would eradicate these problems.
and what has the CAA done to make their charts available in electronic form, free or at a nominal cost, ready to be used on a moving map GPS without inflating its price by a few hundred quid? Nuffink! Their Head of Charts just tells you it's not the CAA's business to interfere with commercial providers (like Memory Map). The excuse is that Ordnance Survey charge so much for their data, but you don't need O/S data for an aviation chart.
The thing that is missing is a survey of pilots who did not infringe, and their navigation habits. Anybody who has done Stats 1 Part 1 would know this. Without such data, one cannot say anything about how different nav methods affect busts.
So you are right, WR, there is no data on correlation between nav methods and busts, but that's none has been collected.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Yearning for sun and sea
Age: 82
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW2
Bit of an idle question really but after an exhausting and frantic dogfight, say over the Channel, I have always wondered how fighter pilots managed to find their home base especially if their action was largely above cloud. Any ideas?