Infringements of the Heathrow CTR
What Crash one actually said was:
For all we know, the aircraft that Crash one trained in were only equipped with a magnetic compass, a stopwatch and bl**dy big windows (to look out of!)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop being so dismissive IO540. Let Crash One and his instructors do it their way. Crash One, put him on ignore, and enjoy learning how to use a compass and stop watch. Far more interesting and fun than these boring electronic gizmos. Make sure you keep an eye on the weather up there, can get dodgy.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
The greatest single thing that stops people broadening their horizons and going to interesting far away places is the weather, not anything to do with navigation. So the greatest single thing to overcome this would be a magic wand. (Or possibly an IMCR or IR, but many of us here fly for fun and sitting in cloud wouldn't count as fun.)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashone has it about right, I recently passed my nppl m, using traditional methods for nav x's, and Im very glad I did so, I have since purchased a garmin 296, reason for choice ? garmins fantastic aftersales service & the availabilty of a 296 training video/dvd, I have never been taught anything about gps, so at least the dvd gives me a fighting chance
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I should clarify a bit.
Our fleet are C-152, 172 & Grob 115
I was trained on the 152, would have preferred the Grob but when I started it wasn't always available. The Grob has a GPS of sorts, the 152s have compass, DI, VOR, one of them even has a transponder! & we carry stopwatch chart etc. I quite enjoyed it, especially as it gets easier with practice.
On my QXC it was rain squalls, black cb in patches & some blue bits, no CAS in sight, the VOR was useful as I could dodge round the black bits without having to worry about getting back on track, Destination Perth so just followed the radial.
In the circuit & training area it would take a complete dummy to bust the Edinburgh zone. So perhaps we are lucky up here with so much class G, widely spaced towns/villages/lochs etc as landmarks.
I did find life a bit more difficult between Edinburgh & Glasgow cos it's far more built up & all looks the same, but, DI & stopwatch works just as well there, speak to Ed approach, very friendly, transits never a problem, just do as they say. I may well come unstuck if I go down to Sussex, having to squeeze sideways between all those zones. So perhaps we have things a bit easier up here, apart from a severe shortage of airfields less than 40nm apart.
Incidentally I am now looking to buy a Kitfox, bloody great fat wheels, compass, perhaps even a radio & wait to see what NPPL people do about floats. That would widen my horizons quite well enough. I have no great desire to go Far Far Away, isn't that were Shrek lives?
Our fleet are C-152, 172 & Grob 115
I was trained on the 152, would have preferred the Grob but when I started it wasn't always available. The Grob has a GPS of sorts, the 152s have compass, DI, VOR, one of them even has a transponder! & we carry stopwatch chart etc. I quite enjoyed it, especially as it gets easier with practice.
On my QXC it was rain squalls, black cb in patches & some blue bits, no CAS in sight, the VOR was useful as I could dodge round the black bits without having to worry about getting back on track, Destination Perth so just followed the radial.
In the circuit & training area it would take a complete dummy to bust the Edinburgh zone. So perhaps we are lucky up here with so much class G, widely spaced towns/villages/lochs etc as landmarks.
I did find life a bit more difficult between Edinburgh & Glasgow cos it's far more built up & all looks the same, but, DI & stopwatch works just as well there, speak to Ed approach, very friendly, transits never a problem, just do as they say. I may well come unstuck if I go down to Sussex, having to squeeze sideways between all those zones. So perhaps we have things a bit easier up here, apart from a severe shortage of airfields less than 40nm apart.
Incidentally I am now looking to buy a Kitfox, bloody great fat wheels, compass, perhaps even a radio & wait to see what NPPL people do about floats. That would widen my horizons quite well enough. I have no great desire to go Far Far Away, isn't that were Shrek lives?
Last edited by Crash one; 23rd Jul 2007 at 22:11.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget GPS. All these pilots needed to do was talk to the FIR and set the SSR code because that prevents infringements does it not?
Who was this student talking to enroute?
A few more posts like this and the someone might realise that getting the FIR (a non-radar unit) to issue an SSR code to everyone they talk to even those in foreign FIRs -much to the dismay of those countries ATS providers does little to reduce the UK's infringement problem.
How many other countries have the same problems?
How many countries have such a disorganised and fragmented ATS system?
GPS may not be the answer simply because navigation may not be the sole reason.
Regards,
DFC
Who was this student talking to enroute?
A few more posts like this and the someone might realise that getting the FIR (a non-radar unit) to issue an SSR code to everyone they talk to even those in foreign FIRs -much to the dismay of those countries ATS providers does little to reduce the UK's infringement problem.
How many other countries have the same problems?
How many countries have such a disorganised and fragmented ATS system?
GPS may not be the answer simply because navigation may not be the sole reason.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In a dreamworld!
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wind calculations are ever done (other than how it affects GS and thus range) because with a GPS one gets continuous track guidance.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC pontificated...
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.
A few more posts like this and the someone might realise that getting the FIR (a non-radar unit) to issue an SSR code to everyone they talk to even those in foreign FIRs -much to the dismay of those countries ATS providers does little to reduce the UK's infringement problem.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed up
If this is true then it seems to be a head down follow the bug on the line computer game sort of thing. I'll definately keep my photo realistic HUD in preference
If this is true then it seems to be a head down follow the bug on the line computer game sort of thing. I'll definately keep my photo realistic HUD in preference
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC - reasonable viz.
Gatwick to Southampton - I have no idea of the actual heading but lets say it is 230 degrees.
Off you go using your HUD (because there be those that say with GPS your head is down in the cockpit) and point selected on the horizon heading 230 degrees.
Glance at the map (and with any luck the command bar also on the display showing your cross track error) and oooh bit left of track, select a new point on the horizon and give that a go. Within a few minutes you will have a point on your HUD that roughly keeps you on the "magenta" line.
No cross refering to your map, no worrying about whether you have found the correct ground feature you were expecting, just eyes up, an occasional glance at your moving map to check whether a small adjustment is needed and to confirm that the ground features look like those on the map.
Cant go wrong really.
Give it a try - you will be surprised how easy it is.
Gatwick to Southampton - I have no idea of the actual heading but lets say it is 230 degrees.
Off you go using your HUD (because there be those that say with GPS your head is down in the cockpit) and point selected on the horizon heading 230 degrees.
Glance at the map (and with any luck the command bar also on the display showing your cross track error) and oooh bit left of track, select a new point on the horizon and give that a go. Within a few minutes you will have a point on your HUD that roughly keeps you on the "magenta" line.
No cross refering to your map, no worrying about whether you have found the correct ground feature you were expecting, just eyes up, an occasional glance at your moving map to check whether a small adjustment is needed and to confirm that the ground features look like those on the map.
Cant go wrong really.
Give it a try - you will be surprised how easy it is.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just like, in fact, trying to make a sailing boat track towards a particular target. Which is easy enough. (And don't forget that sailing is harder because there are three vectors to worry about - heading, wind and tide - rather than just two - heading and wind.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. .. .. and if you are beating, and reacting to the lifts and luffs even the wind is far from constant - infact the lifts might be 20 degrees or more, at least whilst flying the cross wind component is no where near as relevant to whether or not you make the windward mark .
.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
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.
What a bizarre comment.
The greatest single thing that stops people broadening their horizons and going to interesting far away places is the weather, not anything to do with navigation. So the greatest single thing to overcome this would be a magic wand. (Or possibly an IMCR or IR, but many of us here fly for fun and sitting in cloud wouldn't count as fun.)
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.
What a bizarre comment.
The greatest single thing that stops people broadening their horizons and going to interesting far away places is the weather, not anything to do with navigation. So the greatest single thing to overcome this would be a magic wand. (Or possibly an IMCR or IR, but many of us here fly for fun and sitting in cloud wouldn't count as fun.)
If I could afford frequent and long range flying, I would probably own a plane and therefor even buying a GPS wouldn't be an issue.
Some people on here seem to belittle what your average PPL does (only VFR, same destinations, short range blah blah) without thinking that it takes a lot of money to buy your extra ratings and skills. Give us time !
Anyway this is seriously drifting away from the initial thread and also becoming very boring !
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly in my days in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, HMS Ark Royal navigated the Singapore Straights with visual reference to the various brewery signs, Guiness, San Miguel, Tiger etc by triangulation. Must have worked as we never hit anything. Not much in the way of GPS in the 60s.
Perhaps GPS has it's uses but not as the primary system in light GA. How many flight schools worldwide instruct in "glass" a/c from ab-initio? I would guess not a lot.
Perhaps GPS has it's uses but not as the primary system in light GA. How many flight schools worldwide instruct in "glass" a/c from ab-initio? I would guess not a lot.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Socal App
Sorry, I stand corrected. The question I should have asked is. How many flight schools teach GPS nav as primary method only, ignoring the map & compass whizzwheel system?
If you are going to say lots of them over there then that would be bad news.
I nearly asked how many driving schools use automatics, we are a bit antiquated over here & still use a stick to stir the gears with, but I did think that would get me a smack!
I'll go along with the years ahead bit too, trouble with this country is Joe Public thinks an aeroplane is a thing that takes him & his kids to Spain once a year to get pissed & that is all. We have to fight just to keep GA in existence.
Sorry, I stand corrected. The question I should have asked is. How many flight schools teach GPS nav as primary method only, ignoring the map & compass whizzwheel system?
If you are going to say lots of them over there then that would be bad news.
I nearly asked how many driving schools use automatics, we are a bit antiquated over here & still use a stick to stir the gears with, but I did think that would get me a smack!
I'll go along with the years ahead bit too, trouble with this country is Joe Public thinks an aeroplane is a thing that takes him & his kids to Spain once a year to get pissed & that is all. We have to fight just to keep GA in existence.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to drag it back to EGLL infringements - There is something going seriously wrong with the execution or teaching of Nav and we need to get our house in order. I also, believe the very different approach in the UK vs the USA towards Navaids in general and GPS in particular is a contributoory factor. A surprisingly large number of basic PPLs I have met seem to have no clue on Nav other than the DR/Pilotage skills required in the PPL.
Guest
Posts: n/a
mm,
I'm surprised if UK PPL graduates don't have basic radio navigation skills. My own experience from my training is that sensible VOR, DME and ADF usage was encouraged.
DFC,
More to the point, how many countries have such a busy and yet flexible ATS system?
I'm surprised if UK PPL graduates don't have basic radio navigation skills. My own experience from my training is that sensible VOR, DME and ADF usage was encouraged.
DFC,
How many countries have such a disorganised and fragmented ATS system?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point, how many countries have such a busy and yet flexible ATS system?
Comparisons will inevitably be made with the States.
If they are, it should not be forgotten that their systems are light years ahead of ours. If you havent flown there, you will simply not understand how good they are.
Florida airspace I would hazard is far busier than ours with a much more complicated mix of aircraft types. Flight following (RIS) is available everywhere, handovers are automatic and access to all airspace is hassle free. Add to that the simplicity of weather briefings, the in-flight weather and traffic services that are available and the way in which they manage to integrate commercial and private traffic and it is a world apart.
This inevitably reduces the risk of CAS busts because if nothing else the controller is likely to be talking to you, can see you on radar and will intercept the bust before it becomes too much of a problem.
I know, I know it costs and our system is different to theirs. I make the observation though because I so often read how busy our airspace is and how well we cope, when in fact if you have flown in Florida you reliase the way we do things is not necessarily the own way.
In addition to all that has been discussed, the other single change that would IMHO reduce CAS busts is an integrated AT policy for GA (in the same way that exists for commercial traffic). As the quote says, in the south east the UK has one of the most complicated airspace structures. This structure concentrates traffic OCAS into corridors of 1,400 feet with numerous choke points and alleys between CZs that gives the pilot no latitute for navigational error (or for that matter not spotting other traffic).
I have said it before, (but I will say it again) the south east desperately needs an integrated policy. The much heralded changes may achieve that. IMHO NATS has as much a responsibility to do something as does GA to improve its training and us pilots to accept our fundamental responsibility not to bust CAS.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 24th Jul 2007 at 08:47.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US examiner will be looking for the candidate to demonstrate navigation using VORs and DME if fitted. Knowing where he is, intercepting and tracking a radial, that sort of thing. The examiner will be far more interested in navigation using DR and pilotage. The oral will require the candidate to discuss this nav method and his flight plan in detail.
At IR level, if there is a GPS fitted, the candidate will have to demonstrate a GPS approach. Otherwise not.
Back to surface areas and busts. It would be helpful if the edges of busy surface areas were defined not only by surface features, but also by DME arcs/VOR radials. That gives the student everything in theory he needs to avoid them. LHR surface area doesn't appear to have any of these characteristics. So it's hardly surprising people bust the area more than they should. Naturally it's pilot/instructor error, but contributing factors have to be the stupid design. We should be removing contributory factors if at all possible.
All my busy airspace (Class B) busts (one, to my knowledge, and another real close one but I was talking to a Class D tower who warned me) have been level busts. I have always known where I am horizontally because I know where the edges are by looking out of the window/looking at the VOR. I have messed up vertically by not reading the altitudes properly, pilot error. Well, that's the ones I know about
At IR level, if there is a GPS fitted, the candidate will have to demonstrate a GPS approach. Otherwise not.
Back to surface areas and busts. It would be helpful if the edges of busy surface areas were defined not only by surface features, but also by DME arcs/VOR radials. That gives the student everything in theory he needs to avoid them. LHR surface area doesn't appear to have any of these characteristics. So it's hardly surprising people bust the area more than they should. Naturally it's pilot/instructor error, but contributing factors have to be the stupid design. We should be removing contributory factors if at all possible.
All my busy airspace (Class B) busts (one, to my knowledge, and another real close one but I was talking to a Class D tower who warned me) have been level busts. I have always known where I am horizontally because I know where the edges are by looking out of the window/looking at the VOR. I have messed up vertically by not reading the altitudes properly, pilot error. Well, that's the ones I know about