Infringements of the Heathrow CTR
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware that anybody has researched this professionally.
The Ontrack report, with categories like "get-home-itis" and "over reliance on GPS" is the one attempt I know about but is nearly useless.
One thing is certain: so long as people do dead reckoning / visual nav only there will be busts, at about the present level, and nothing can be done about this. This is because GA pilot currency is not that great; the national average is somewhere in the region of 10-20hrs/year and at that level the man is only just hanging in there in terms of cockpit workload. You get away with it in familiar territory (and that is exactly what many pilots do) but sometimes not when going further afield.
The Ontrack report, with categories like "get-home-itis" and "over reliance on GPS" is the one attempt I know about but is nearly useless.
One thing is certain: so long as people do dead reckoning / visual nav only there will be busts, at about the present level, and nothing can be done about this. This is because GA pilot currency is not that great; the national average is somewhere in the region of 10-20hrs/year and at that level the man is only just hanging in there in terms of cockpit workload. You get away with it in familiar territory (and that is exactly what many pilots do) but sometimes not when going further afield.
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
Those that say it is not reliable simply do not have the evidence to support their argument
I am not anti GPS. It is a wonderful tool, the best aid to navigation and situational awareness since, well, probably since the map.
However, it is vital to realise that all navigation must be based around flying the correct heading for the correct time. Then, a pilot must be aware that any planned heading and time will not be 100% accurate, and must have a means of adjusting a planned heading and time.
The method of adjusting the planned heading and time is what distinguishes one method of navigation from another. Looking out the window is not only a very good way of doing this, but it is also a very good way of teaching the principal.
Once the principal has been taught and understood, other methods can be introduced. This can include taking regular fixes from off-route navaids, or it can include tracking to or from a navaid, but in either case, it is suplimentary to steering a heading and measuring the time.
GPS is simply the next logical step in this process. Once again, the basic idea of steering a heading for a time is important, and then the GPS should be used to adjust the heading and time as necessary to arrive at the destination, or to confirm the current position along the planned track.
The danger of teaching GPS to PPLs is that, because of the presentation of data on the GPS, it is too easy to use it incorrectly, i.e. to fly by reference to the moving map, rather than by reference to compass and stopwatch. If students are allowed to do this during their training, they will most likely complete their training with no clear idea of how to navigate. If they have been taught to navigate properly, however, the use of GPS can be taught very easilly afterwards.
FFF
----------------
PS - Dublinpilot, going back a few pages, but yes, I think we agree about the 72nm leg, except maybe for some semantics.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFF,
A good point well made! Personally, I think your view can be extended to say that the tools for maintaining the multi-faceted phenomenon of situational awareness are also multi-fold; DR and GPS are probably complementary in the that respect. Personally, I don't equate 'moving map magenta navigation' as situational awareness, I suspect, that if the moving map is seen as situational awareness in its own right, then flying becomes a reactive activity - which is not being situationally aware and will plonk one in trouble sooner or later.
IO540,
The issue of recency is a probable cause in its own right regardless of aircraft, conditions or navigation technique. However, I would suggest that one would have to be very un-recent to let a 100 knoter get away from you to the extent that one wonders into the Heathrow CTR. Recency in my view, is something that merely exacerbates an existing problem, I don't believe it can be the route cause for the issue at large.
A good point well made! Personally, I think your view can be extended to say that the tools for maintaining the multi-faceted phenomenon of situational awareness are also multi-fold; DR and GPS are probably complementary in the that respect. Personally, I don't equate 'moving map magenta navigation' as situational awareness, I suspect, that if the moving map is seen as situational awareness in its own right, then flying becomes a reactive activity - which is not being situationally aware and will plonk one in trouble sooner or later.
IO540,
The issue of recency is a probable cause in its own right regardless of aircraft, conditions or navigation technique. However, I would suggest that one would have to be very un-recent to let a 100 knoter get away from you to the extent that one wonders into the Heathrow CTR. Recency in my view, is something that merely exacerbates an existing problem, I don't believe it can be the route cause for the issue at large.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slim slag,
I'm sure, but there is a minimum. I'd be quite happy to see a smaller London CTR; more space for when I go flying with my friends (shock horror, second LHR ATCO able to empathise with the VFR pilot!
), if the SIDs were altered to keep away from the edges. Of course, if the CTR is smaller, that's less time we as ATCOs have to spot any infringers that might get close to our traffic.
I don't spend a lot of time around the London CTR myself, most of my time has been spent chugging around Andrewsfield/Earls Colne way. I do still get a fright when some of my oppos, who have far more flying hours than I have, make schoolboy errors in VFR nav. Many a time I've pointed out that we were headed straight toward Stansted!
Hope you enjoyed the hols!
What size surface area is neccessary is a matter for argument, and I don't think LHR controllers have a monopoly in that discussion. Remember, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it 
), if the SIDs were altered to keep away from the edges. Of course, if the CTR is smaller, that's less time we as ATCOs have to spot any infringers that might get close to our traffic.I don't spend a lot of time around the London CTR myself, most of my time has been spent chugging around Andrewsfield/Earls Colne way. I do still get a fright when some of my oppos, who have far more flying hours than I have, make schoolboy errors in VFR nav. Many a time I've pointed out that we were headed straight toward Stansted!
Hope you enjoyed the hols!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bucks
Age: 34
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think a huge problem with GA pilots, being one myself, is that many i talk to are affraid of ATC. They give controlled airspace a wide birth just so as not to have to talk to ATC.
I personally think too, although many of us fly in class G airspace only during a PPL should be required to make some sort of contact with a proper controlled airspace unit. Especially around the TMA / Heathrow CTR area
I myself am based at Wycombe EGTB, and decided that it was worth a trip, and so called up Luton radar and did a zone transit. Which was FANTASTIC!
After which, i was "temporarily uncertain of my position" as i prefer to call it! This was after i had left luton zone and was clear of their airspace.
visibility dropped soon after and i was concerned about drifting into Luton airspace again... I then realised my aircraft had ADF failure to which i couldn't track WCO NDB which would have certainly kept me clear of Luton and in the direction i required.
So i asked luton radar for a position fix and a bearing to wco.
They were very helpful, and i didnt feel like a prat for asking!
My message is, ATC units are there to provide you with a service. If in doubt ask.
Unfortunatly there have been many incidents where people have tried to hide the embarrasment over the radio by not asking and / or realising they have breeched controlled airspace and thus turned off the transponder which for a controller i would imagin is even worse, as now he/ she doesnt know where you are.
If in doubt Ask! If you dont know the frequency, London info, or D&D 121.5
at the end of the day, its not worth your licence, or a hefty fine that could come without!
I found Luton zone transit a wonder for experience!
Sam
TC
I personally think too, although many of us fly in class G airspace only during a PPL should be required to make some sort of contact with a proper controlled airspace unit. Especially around the TMA / Heathrow CTR area
I myself am based at Wycombe EGTB, and decided that it was worth a trip, and so called up Luton radar and did a zone transit. Which was FANTASTIC!
After which, i was "temporarily uncertain of my position" as i prefer to call it! This was after i had left luton zone and was clear of their airspace.
visibility dropped soon after and i was concerned about drifting into Luton airspace again... I then realised my aircraft had ADF failure to which i couldn't track WCO NDB which would have certainly kept me clear of Luton and in the direction i required.
So i asked luton radar for a position fix and a bearing to wco.
They were very helpful, and i didnt feel like a prat for asking!
My message is, ATC units are there to provide you with a service. If in doubt ask.
Unfortunatly there have been many incidents where people have tried to hide the embarrasment over the radio by not asking and / or realising they have breeched controlled airspace and thus turned off the transponder which for a controller i would imagin is even worse, as now he/ she doesnt know where you are.
If in doubt Ask! If you dont know the frequency, London info, or D&D 121.5
at the end of the day, its not worth your licence, or a hefty fine that could come without!
I found Luton zone transit a wonder for experience!
Sam
TC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 45
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't get all this animosity towards the use of GPS in the PPL. It seems a little dogmatic.
I agree wholeheartedly that a PPL holder must be entirely competent in navigating VFR without GPS or radio nav. But surely there is so much to gain by using GPS in a manner that robustly complements VFR navigation. I'm under the impression that there is a growing body of "best practice" for using GPS in this way: and if this is the case, then tuition of this best practice should be incorporated into the PPL. It's possibly worth keeping the QXC GPS-free, along the same principle that elementary radio-nav is taught in the PPL but not significantly tested.
I agree wholeheartedly that a PPL holder must be entirely competent in navigating VFR without GPS or radio nav. But surely there is so much to gain by using GPS in a manner that robustly complements VFR navigation. I'm under the impression that there is a growing body of "best practice" for using GPS in this way: and if this is the case, then tuition of this best practice should be incorporated into the PPL. It's possibly worth keeping the QXC GPS-free, along the same principle that elementary radio-nav is taught in the PPL but not significantly tested.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of recency is a probable cause in its own right regardless of aircraft, conditions or navigation technique. However, I would suggest that one would have to be very un-recent to let a 100 knoter get away from you to the extent that one wonders into the Heathrow CTR. Recency in my view, is something that merely exacerbates an existing problem, I don't believe it can be the route cause for the issue at large.
I think the factors I gave are contributory but I agree they are not the whole answer.
In any given year, countless thousands of GA pilots weave their way about that area, using all kinds of nav, ranging from map reading to GPS. The "true locals" just "know" where they are, without a map - I know because I've flown with a few of them.
And only a few hundred, say 1%, bust some piece of CAS.
It would be useful to find out just what this 1% did, which the other 99% or so didn't do.
I think many other pilots get lost, both PPLs and students, but they get away with it. One student I trained with got totally lost on his QXC. The instructors were biting their nails for the max possible fuel endurance time; about 5 hours and then got very worried. Eventually he phoned in... he ended up wondering around Norfolk or Suffolk for hours and eventually saw a runway and landed on it.
I suspect those 1% were just unlucky. Low currency means high cockpit workload and mistakes are more likely. I've flown 220 instead of 200 a few times, or set the wrong target altitude/level on the AP. Anybody can do it, even professional pilots do it all the time.
There are IMHO two approaches to this: just accept it as something humans will do no matter what, or drastically overhaul the training process. One could argue this both ways.
The FAA has a good approach: if you turn up on the checkride with a GPS+AP equipped plane, you need to show you know how to use the equipment. This ensures that all recent PPLs know these basic things, while avoiding the FAA getting blamed for making the PPL more expensive. Whereas in the UK we just pretend this kit doesn't exist, and then moan that some pilots don't know how to program the GPS. Americans learn dead reckoning too (PPL and CPL) but it's quite difficult today to come out with a PPL without having learnt how to load up a panel mounted GPS.
I think the factors I gave are contributory but I agree they are not the whole answer.
In any given year, countless thousands of GA pilots weave their way about that area, using all kinds of nav, ranging from map reading to GPS. The "true locals" just "know" where they are, without a map - I know because I've flown with a few of them.
And only a few hundred, say 1%, bust some piece of CAS.
It would be useful to find out just what this 1% did, which the other 99% or so didn't do.
I think many other pilots get lost, both PPLs and students, but they get away with it. One student I trained with got totally lost on his QXC. The instructors were biting their nails for the max possible fuel endurance time; about 5 hours and then got very worried. Eventually he phoned in... he ended up wondering around Norfolk or Suffolk for hours and eventually saw a runway and landed on it.
I suspect those 1% were just unlucky. Low currency means high cockpit workload and mistakes are more likely. I've flown 220 instead of 200 a few times, or set the wrong target altitude/level on the AP. Anybody can do it, even professional pilots do it all the time.
There are IMHO two approaches to this: just accept it as something humans will do no matter what, or drastically overhaul the training process. One could argue this both ways.
The FAA has a good approach: if you turn up on the checkride with a GPS+AP equipped plane, you need to show you know how to use the equipment. This ensures that all recent PPLs know these basic things, while avoiding the FAA getting blamed for making the PPL more expensive. Whereas in the UK we just pretend this kit doesn't exist, and then moan that some pilots don't know how to program the GPS. Americans learn dead reckoning too (PPL and CPL) but it's quite difficult today to come out with a PPL without having learnt how to load up a panel mounted GPS.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The danger of teaching GPS to PPLs is that, because of the presentation of data on the GPS, it is too easy to use it incorrectly, i.e. to fly by reference to the moving map, rather than by reference to compass and stopwatch.
Times are changing.
I learnt to use a sextant. You will be hard pushed to find a yachtie that can.
I remember my first Decca set. You relied on DR because you couldn’t rely on the Decca.
It is becoming the norm for new aircraft to have a panel mounted GPS. I suspect that G1000 glass screens will end up cheaper for the manufacturers to fit than traditional instruments. At the moment the profit margin is high, but there are huge savings in fitting two glass panels and a rack of avionics conveniently located somewhere else in the aircraft than shoe horning a collection of traditional avionics into a panel.
Times are changing.
We have always plotted a course, steered a heading and compared how well this is worked out compared with some other reference (be it visual cues, VORs, DMEs or NDBs). Gradually we fine tune our heading and end up with something that is acceptably accurate.
Good fun, yes, but efficient and intuitive, I doubt it, we do it that way because well we always have.
Give a student a G1000 and a magenta line and he will approach getting from A to B in quite a different way.
Ah, I hear you say, but just wait until a sun spot sneaks up unexpectedly and watch the chaos ensue. You may be right, but most people couldn’t replace their fan belt with a pair of stockings, but fortunately fan belts are also a lot more reliable than they use to be.
Just to clarify my earlier comment, I'm in favour of the use of GPS in GA. I love gadgets and I want one.
I just think the PPL is such a wonderful mixture of new knowledge, new sensations, new motor skills, the fear/exhilaration of that first solo, the skill test that it should be kept simple.
Put it this way, once you've learned to navigate by a chart you will not have a problem teaching yourself to use a GPS, just as once you know how to fly a C152 you can probably learn to fly most prop aircraft.
Anyway, this thread was about CTR infringements and I maintain my view that a pilot flying VFR should be able to avoid Heathrow's CTR without needing a GPS!
I just think the PPL is such a wonderful mixture of new knowledge, new sensations, new motor skills, the fear/exhilaration of that first solo, the skill test that it should be kept simple.
Put it this way, once you've learned to navigate by a chart you will not have a problem teaching yourself to use a GPS, just as once you know how to fly a C152 you can probably learn to fly most prop aircraft.
Anyway, this thread was about CTR infringements and I maintain my view that a pilot flying VFR should be able to avoid Heathrow's CTR without needing a GPS!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Americans learn dead reckoning too (PPL and CPL) but it's quite difficult today to come out with a PPL without having learnt how to load up a panel mounted GPS.
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FAA Pactical Test Standards
A. TASK: PILOTAGE AND DEAD RECKONING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to pilotage and dead
reckoning.
2. Follows the preplanned course by reference to landmarks.
3. Identifies landmarks by relating surface features to chart symbols.
4. Navigates by means of precomputed headings, groundspeeds, and
elapsed time.
5. Corrects for and records the differences between preflight
groundspeed and heading calculations and those determined en
route.
6. Verifies the airplane's position within three (3) nautical miles of the
flight-planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within five (5) minutes of the
initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings, ±15°.
B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings ±15°.
1-25 FAA-S-8081-14A
C. TASK: DIVERSION (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to diversion.
2. Selects an appropriate alternate airport and route.
3. Makes an accurate estimate of heading, groundspeed, arrival time,
and fuel consumption to the alternate airport.
4. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
heading, ±15°.
D. TASK: LOST PROCEDURES (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to lost procedures.
2. Selects an appropriate course of action.
3. Maintains an appropriate heading and climbs, if necessary.
4. Identifies prominent landmarks.
5. Uses navigation systems/facilities and/or contacts an ATC facility for
assistance, as appropriate.
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to pilotage and dead
reckoning.
2. Follows the preplanned course by reference to landmarks.
3. Identifies landmarks by relating surface features to chart symbols.
4. Navigates by means of precomputed headings, groundspeeds, and
elapsed time.
5. Corrects for and records the differences between preflight
groundspeed and heading calculations and those determined en
route.
6. Verifies the airplane's position within three (3) nautical miles of the
flight-planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within five (5) minutes of the
initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings, ±15°.
B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings ±15°.
1-25 FAA-S-8081-14A
C. TASK: DIVERSION (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to diversion.
2. Selects an appropriate alternate airport and route.
3. Makes an accurate estimate of heading, groundspeed, arrival time,
and fuel consumption to the alternate airport.
4. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
heading, ±15°.
D. TASK: LOST PROCEDURES (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to lost procedures.
2. Selects an appropriate course of action.
3. Maintains an appropriate heading and climbs, if necessary.
4. Identifies prominent landmarks.
5. Uses navigation systems/facilities and/or contacts an ATC facility for
assistance, as appropriate.
The Original Foot
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS Training
My view is that GPS should be taught during PPL. I have a cracking unit, but there are no agreed procedures and I learnt to use it by making mistakes. I agree that Students should be taught to not rely on it, but Solo and Instuctor exercises could be developed for with and without. When I did my solo exercises, nobody disabled the RNAV equipment on my plane and I tuned them in because they were there and I was trained in the use of them. If I went flying with a fellow pilot now and didn't tune in RNAV, they would probably start doing it for me and look strangely at me ; - )
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they don't actually
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.
Doesn't surprise me one bit, lets hope the CAA read this also
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.
Doesn't surprise me one bit, lets hope the CAA read this also
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct Bravo
anyway I got it from the horse's mouth, but the horse could have been telling lies to justify their nav shortcomings.
Not that the JAR checkride allows GPS navigation anyway.
anyway I got it from the horse's mouth, but the horse could have been telling lies to justify their nav shortcomings.
Not that the JAR checkride allows GPS navigation anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected - HH's comment seemed a response to IO's quoted comment on FAA training and check rides. I do find it surprising that JAR training in the US (but regulated by Europe) has moved to pure moving map as compared to JAR training in the UK which AFAIK has no GPS training and no requirement for electronic aids or interaction with Radar units.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just a brand new NPPL rookie. Our training school makes little mention of GPS except "Then you will go & get one & forget all this DR stuff".
Therefore I am at the stage of thinking they may make life a lot less stressful, but, what if? computers being what they are.
I also believe that DR was "designed" in the days when, like James Stewart did, Spirit of St Louis, hang out the window "Which way's Oireland?" So perhaps we do need something more in keeping with this century, But, only after we know the real thing, the batteries last a long time anyway.
So total abstention from GPS till after the QXC/GST, then the offer if required of further training by someone who knows how to use them, not just buy it & read the book.
Many moons ago I was at a nav training evening. The instructor (ex Spit jockey) said "We will plan a route from London to Truro, so what is the track? Being a twit I said "About westish" The guy sitting next to me said in a pompous tone "No no we have to be considerably more accurate than that" fiddling with his new electronic nav computer, "We actually steer 078 deg magnetic" or thereabouts. The answer was obvious "Take a big packed lunch & we'll see you in a month".
I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation so maybe that scenario is no longer possible today. I'm just a bit wary of putting my life in the hands of a microchip. Or maybe I'm just too bloody old.
Therefore I am at the stage of thinking they may make life a lot less stressful, but, what if? computers being what they are.
I also believe that DR was "designed" in the days when, like James Stewart did, Spirit of St Louis, hang out the window "Which way's Oireland?" So perhaps we do need something more in keeping with this century, But, only after we know the real thing, the batteries last a long time anyway.
So total abstention from GPS till after the QXC/GST, then the offer if required of further training by someone who knows how to use them, not just buy it & read the book.
Many moons ago I was at a nav training evening. The instructor (ex Spit jockey) said "We will plan a route from London to Truro, so what is the track? Being a twit I said "About westish" The guy sitting next to me said in a pompous tone "No no we have to be considerably more accurate than that" fiddling with his new electronic nav computer, "We actually steer 078 deg magnetic" or thereabouts. The answer was obvious "Take a big packed lunch & we'll see you in a month".
I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation so maybe that scenario is no longer possible today. I'm just a bit wary of putting my life in the hands of a microchip. Or maybe I'm just too bloody old.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation
I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.
I've never used an "electronic nav computer"; there is no need for one.
If VFR, I plan the route on the paper chart (for CAS and terrain clearance), in minutes draw it in Navbox Pro, print off the plog, optionally enter it (using waypoint names, never coordinates) into the GPS, and fly the GPS track.
If IFR, it's planned using one website, verified using another website, loaded into the GPS and off one goes.
No wind calculations are ever done (other than how it affects GS and thus range) because with a GPS one gets continuous track guidance.
I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.
I've never used an "electronic nav computer"; there is no need for one.
If VFR, I plan the route on the paper chart (for CAS and terrain clearance), in minutes draw it in Navbox Pro, print off the plog, optionally enter it (using waypoint names, never coordinates) into the GPS, and fly the GPS track.
If IFR, it's planned using one website, verified using another website, loaded into the GPS and off one goes.
No wind calculations are ever done (other than how it affects GS and thus range) because with a GPS one gets continuous track guidance.