How would YOU teach PPL nav?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just looked at IO540 recommendation for a GPS, the KMD150. Yours for 2100 notes. What's that, a years worth of flying for an average ppl? Two years? I think you are in a different budget league to most ppls IO.
It also has its own power supply so very easy to move between different club aircraft - a clear moving map and pretty much all the same functions as even the G1000 so far as the GPS component is concerned. In fact other than the procedural stuff I cant think of anything I do on the G1000 the 195 doesnt do.
Panel mounts are fine but the only things they really enable you to do that you cant with a hand held is use the GPS for flying a procedure (if it is so certified) and linking to an autopilot - in terms of reliability I doubt there is much between the two.
For a private aircraft, yes - of course it makes sense to use your own GPS.
But we did away with our little 'handheld' a while ago, due to the isue of power leads, antenna leads etc. We had external GPS antennae fitted, so that all pilots needed to do was to fit the yoke mount and plug in the 2 leads - one power, one antenna.
The problem was that people didn't fit the yoke mount properly and the cables could often foul the engine controls. So on purely safety issues we moved on to the GPS150. Then later to the GNC250 when we replaced the non-FM immune radios with new ones and fitted the GNC250 as Comm2 with a very similar GPS 'face' to the GPS150. Standardising on the GPS150/GNC250 mean that our FIs only had one 'system' to learn and should therefore be capable of teaching it.
Even so, we still get people who prefer to use their own handhelds....
Regarding the issue of airspace busts, I think perhaps there is another category. Those who don't really know exactly where they are, who then enter home aerodrome and press 'Direct To', cutting the corner through someone else's airspace. Which probably wouldn't happen with an up-to-date moving map display, I agree.
Finally, it's not a question of flyig clubs 'not wanting to spend the money' - they very probably just don't have 'the money' to splash out on smart new GPS systems. Particularly when they may (as we did) be required to spend money on the FM-immunity nonsense or, shortly perhaps, Mode S.
For the £17K it took to upgrade 4 aircraft to FM-immunity and panel GPS, we probably got a good deal overall. But we have no fundamental need to upgrade further, nor will we unless Mode S is forced on us.
But we did away with our little 'handheld' a while ago, due to the isue of power leads, antenna leads etc. We had external GPS antennae fitted, so that all pilots needed to do was to fit the yoke mount and plug in the 2 leads - one power, one antenna.
The problem was that people didn't fit the yoke mount properly and the cables could often foul the engine controls. So on purely safety issues we moved on to the GPS150. Then later to the GNC250 when we replaced the non-FM immune radios with new ones and fitted the GNC250 as Comm2 with a very similar GPS 'face' to the GPS150. Standardising on the GPS150/GNC250 mean that our FIs only had one 'system' to learn and should therefore be capable of teaching it.
Even so, we still get people who prefer to use their own handhelds....
Regarding the issue of airspace busts, I think perhaps there is another category. Those who don't really know exactly where they are, who then enter home aerodrome and press 'Direct To', cutting the corner through someone else's airspace. Which probably wouldn't happen with an up-to-date moving map display, I agree.
Finally, it's not a question of flyig clubs 'not wanting to spend the money' - they very probably just don't have 'the money' to splash out on smart new GPS systems. Particularly when they may (as we did) be required to spend money on the FM-immunity nonsense or, shortly perhaps, Mode S.
For the £17K it took to upgrade 4 aircraft to FM-immunity and panel GPS, we probably got a good deal overall. But we have no fundamental need to upgrade further, nor will we unless Mode S is forced on us.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
I don't think that you have read my post correctly.
In your diagram, if the TRK has remained constant, that aircraft was never overhead WPT1 and the CDI would never have centred.
TRK information is very useful when combined with DTK and the CDI. That is why GARMIN designed the CDI on their very popular units to show DTK, TRK and off track distance.
Having BRG is of limited usefulness since it requires some mental gymnastics and wind correction to be of use in regaining track.
Having TRK makes it simply a case of turning so that TRK is a value that will intercept track by the desired amount i.e........
We are here some 3nm right of desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. Simple - make TRK read 030 until the CDI centres.
Now try it your way -
We are some 3nm rignt of the desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. The BRG to WPT2 is 075 and the distance is 60nm.
Now do I go for the 1 in 60 rule or do I try double the error which is ? or do I try SCA but wil that avoid the zone OH heck I am not getting a lot of useful help from my GPS am I.
Do you understand the point I am making yet?
Regards,
DFC
I don't think that you have read my post correctly.
In your diagram, if the TRK has remained constant, that aircraft was never overhead WPT1 and the CDI would never have centred.
TRK information is very useful when combined with DTK and the CDI. That is why GARMIN designed the CDI on their very popular units to show DTK, TRK and off track distance.
Having BRG is of limited usefulness since it requires some mental gymnastics and wind correction to be of use in regaining track.
Having TRK makes it simply a case of turning so that TRK is a value that will intercept track by the desired amount i.e........
We are here some 3nm right of desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. Simple - make TRK read 030 until the CDI centres.
Now try it your way -
We are some 3nm rignt of the desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. The BRG to WPT2 is 075 and the distance is 60nm.
Now do I go for the 1 in 60 rule or do I try double the error which is ? or do I try SCA but wil that avoid the zone OH heck I am not getting a lot of useful help from my GPS am I.
Do you understand the point I am making yet?
Regards,
DFC
"TRK information is very useful when combined with DTK and the CDI."
Perhaps - but that's rather different to your earlier comments.
If you're 3 miles off track and need to make a 60 deg avoidance turn to avoid airspace......
Perhaps - but that's rather different to your earlier comments.
If you're 3 miles off track and need to make a 60 deg avoidance turn to avoid airspace......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My position has not changed but I detect from your "perhaps" that you may have seen the light. 
K:
The numbers are not significant, but the ease with which the DTK can be intercepted at any desired angle without any amount of calcualtion is.
It is very much an issue when dealing with PPL basic navigation. After all what we do is teach them to calculate a heading that should cause the aircraft track made good to equal the desired track and we put much store in being at the start fix acurately and if the wind is as calculated and they fly accurate heading and airspeed we tell them that they will end up at the point they are trying to get to.
Very confusing when an instructor then turns round and says that if you are at the start of your route and you keep track made good equal to desired track you may not end up at the destination.
Regards,
DFC
K:The numbers are not significant, but the ease with which the DTK can be intercepted at any desired angle without any amount of calcualtion is.
It is very much an issue when dealing with PPL basic navigation. After all what we do is teach them to calculate a heading that should cause the aircraft track made good to equal the desired track and we put much store in being at the start fix acurately and if the wind is as calculated and they fly accurate heading and airspeed we tell them that they will end up at the point they are trying to get to.
Very confusing when an instructor then turns round and says that if you are at the start of your route and you keep track made good equal to desired track you may not end up at the destination.
Regards,
DFC
One can assess position against desired track using linear or angular measures:
To use linear measures, you need DTK and cross-track error (XTE). TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease XTE, with a target XTE of zero. This is a CDI mentality.
To use angular measures, you need DTK and BRG. TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease BRG, with a target BRG of DTK. This is an RMI mentality, and is my personal preference.
In both cases, the big bonus the GPS gives you is the TRK output, which in pre-GPS days was a question of heading and drift guesswork.
In both cases, DTK stays constant until you reach the next waypoint. To have it on-screen is a useful reminder but it's always the least important of the three fields to display whether TRK/XTE/DTK or TRK/BRG/DTK.
Wind correction?!
To use linear measures, you need DTK and cross-track error (XTE). TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease XTE, with a target XTE of zero. This is a CDI mentality.
To use angular measures, you need DTK and BRG. TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease BRG, with a target BRG of DTK. This is an RMI mentality, and is my personal preference.
In both cases, the big bonus the GPS gives you is the TRK output, which in pre-GPS days was a question of heading and drift guesswork.
In both cases, DTK stays constant until you reach the next waypoint. To have it on-screen is a useful reminder but it's always the least important of the three fields to display whether TRK/XTE/DTK or TRK/BRG/DTK.
Having BRG is of limited usefulness since it requires some mental gymnastics and wind correction to be of use in regaining track.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes wind correction -
You are 40nm from WPT2. The BRG is 070deg and the DTK is 075.
You want to make a 60deg intercept of the DTK but do not have TRK displayed.
What heading are you going use to do that fly if the wind is 140/30?
This whole idea is similar to the discussions one gets about the two methods one comes across for using the dreaded wizz wheel. the problem is that one method replicates the triangle of velocities while the other one requires much wiggle waggle waste of time. People are often limited to what they are taught during training and even if the instruction manual that they purchased with the device says to do things one way they wil persist with what they have learned i.e. primacy.
So it really is a question of training the trainers which is the priority rather than making any great change to the PPL VFR navigation sylabus is it not?
Regards,
DFC
You are 40nm from WPT2. The BRG is 070deg and the DTK is 075.
You want to make a 60deg intercept of the DTK but do not have TRK displayed.
What heading are you going use to do that fly if the wind is 140/30?
This whole idea is similar to the discussions one gets about the two methods one comes across for using the dreaded wizz wheel. the problem is that one method replicates the triangle of velocities while the other one requires much wiggle waggle waste of time. People are often limited to what they are taught during training and even if the instruction manual that they purchased with the device says to do things one way they wil persist with what they have learned i.e. primacy.
So it really is a question of training the trainers which is the priority rather than making any great change to the PPL VFR navigation sylabus is it not?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but do not have TRK displayed"
Sorry, but I simply don't understand your preoccupation with specific track intercept angles.
You do seem to be making a simple navigation system designed for everyday PPL use into some arcane navigation art form.
Check the displayed leg DTK is the same as the one measured pre-flight and keep the CDI centred - what's so hard about that?
K I S S
You do seem to be making a simple navigation system designed for everyday PPL use into some arcane navigation art form.
Check the displayed leg DTK is the same as the one measured pre-flight and keep the CDI centred - what's so hard about that?
K I S S
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC and BEagle
I have followed with some interest.
I am confused where it is leading, not only so far as this thread is concerned but generally.
It doesnt seem to either relate to the thread or to the way most would use their GPS - please enlighten me.
I have followed with some interest.
I am confused where it is leading, not only so far as this thread is concerned but generally.
It doesnt seem to either relate to the thread or to the way most would use their GPS - please enlighten me.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you refer to post 153, you will see that BEagle took offence with some member of his club that dared to display TRK and DTK on one of the club GPS units.
I agree totally with Islander2 that it is one of the most useful pieces of info that one can have.
What it shows Fuji is that until the "teachers" have a thorough grasp of what is involved then navigation is not going to be taught very well and thus not very well practised or understood by the plot population.
Regards,
DFC
I agree totally with Islander2 that it is one of the most useful pieces of info that one can have.
What it shows Fuji is that until the "teachers" have a thorough grasp of what is involved then navigation is not going to be taught very well and thus not very well practised or understood by the plot population.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am confused too where this is leading.
When flying with a moving map GPS, navigation reduces to the trivial process of adjusting one's heading until the projected track passes through the place where one wants to go.
Normally, one flies so the track ahead (what the Americans sometimes call the "course") lines up with the programmed track; this is what happens if you fly with a GPS coupled autopilot. Or, one might just fly straight towards the next waypoint. Or in between some airport ATZs. Or to cut a corner off a VOR so one doesn't fly straight over it. Etc. Etc. It becomes so trivial it's hard to write about it.
When flying with a moving map GPS, navigation reduces to the trivial process of adjusting one's heading until the projected track passes through the place where one wants to go.
Normally, one flies so the track ahead (what the Americans sometimes call the "course") lines up with the programmed track; this is what happens if you fly with a GPS coupled autopilot. Or, one might just fly straight towards the next waypoint. Or in between some airport ATZs. Or to cut a corner off a VOR so one doesn't fly straight over it. Etc. Etc. It becomes so trivial it's hard to write about it.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder, if, its a case of being able to understand and diseminate information, ie, when I was at school, I could never understand why we had to be taught applied maths ( x + y = z ) etc
eventually I asked the tutor, and he's reply stuck with me for years, its to see if you have a logical brain, so I wonder, if this is why ppl / nppl nav is taught this way, a way of, keeping people, with limited understanding from flying ? and killing themselves, JUST A THOUGHT
eventually I asked the tutor, and he's reply stuck with me for years, its to see if you have a logical brain, so I wonder, if this is why ppl / nppl nav is taught this way, a way of, keeping people, with limited understanding from flying ? and killing themselves, JUST A THOUGHT
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me it's sensible to make student PPLs use the whizwheel, map, lines, etc to make sure they understand what they are doing before they go onto anything else.
It's the same as making sure children can add up, etc on paper so they understand the basics before you let them loose with a calculator.
(I'm not an instructor, but I teach/have taught people from 8 years old up to 70+, but mostly late teens and adults).
By the way I love using 'traditional' navigation methods, even though I have a GPS. I suppose it's the same pleasure some people get from flying tailwheels.
It's the same as making sure children can add up, etc on paper so they understand the basics before you let them loose with a calculator.
(I'm not an instructor, but I teach/have taught people from 8 years old up to 70+, but mostly late teens and adults).
By the way I love using 'traditional' navigation methods, even though I have a GPS. I suppose it's the same pleasure some people get from flying tailwheels.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mariner9
I hoped that the
would indicate that the tongue was firmly in cheek.
But joking aside, the whiz wheel does illustrate the effect of wind pictorially to the student, which will help the novice to visualise the problem helping it to become second nature as you correctly suggest it should be.
DFC,
I have not really followed you argument fully, but if you are three miles off track using a GPS when you trying to fly accurately down a track, it is pretty poor. The way I do it is to match BRG with TRK and if you are reasonably attentive, there is no reason why BRG shouldn't remain within a degree or two of DTK.
I accept the bimbling argument, but if as is suggested there is not much to change in the PPL syllabus in the short term at least, then map reading skills should be good enough to deviate from a track and revert back to the track using feature hopping/ track crawl or what ever you like to call it. These skills must be taught and practised. If traditional nav techniques are swept away for progress' sake, the next step is that a moving map GPS becomes a requirement more or less how a whiz wheel is now. Is that really what private flying wants?
I have to say I agree with the need for progress when progress is needed. But taking the progress argument forward, you end up with autopiloted private aircraft coupled to a GPS doing 3D nav, just the way the commercial world is going. You would just about eliminate airspace busts but talk about nanny state. That is not what private aviation is all about. Private aviation is about freedom.
One day soon, I am going to have to give up flying and become a systems manager. I suppose I will stay good at the first 50kts and last 50'. Maybe then I will take up private flying again to do some real flying.
I hoped that the
would indicate that the tongue was firmly in cheek.But joking aside, the whiz wheel does illustrate the effect of wind pictorially to the student, which will help the novice to visualise the problem helping it to become second nature as you correctly suggest it should be.
DFC,
I have not really followed you argument fully, but if you are three miles off track using a GPS when you trying to fly accurately down a track, it is pretty poor. The way I do it is to match BRG with TRK and if you are reasonably attentive, there is no reason why BRG shouldn't remain within a degree or two of DTK.
I accept the bimbling argument, but if as is suggested there is not much to change in the PPL syllabus in the short term at least, then map reading skills should be good enough to deviate from a track and revert back to the track using feature hopping/ track crawl or what ever you like to call it. These skills must be taught and practised. If traditional nav techniques are swept away for progress' sake, the next step is that a moving map GPS becomes a requirement more or less how a whiz wheel is now. Is that really what private flying wants?
I have to say I agree with the need for progress when progress is needed. But taking the progress argument forward, you end up with autopiloted private aircraft coupled to a GPS doing 3D nav, just the way the commercial world is going. You would just about eliminate airspace busts but talk about nanny state. That is not what private aviation is all about. Private aviation is about freedom.
One day soon, I am going to have to give up flying and become a systems manager. I suppose I will stay good at the first 50kts and last 50'. Maybe then I will take up private flying again to do some real flying.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder, if this is why ppl / nppl nav is taught this way, a way of, keeping people, with limited understanding from flying ? and killing themselves, JUST A THOUGHT
You are on dangerous ground there, TV. You need to watch your back.
The way you are going, you will soon be questioning why the initial medical requirements are stricter than the renewal ones - even though the B747 taking you from Heathrow to NY is being flown by two pilots who haven't had an initial medical for many years.
People like you are not welcome in this business.
You are on dangerous ground there, TV. You need to watch your back.
The way you are going, you will soon be questioning why the initial medical requirements are stricter than the renewal ones - even though the B747 taking you from Heathrow to NY is being flown by two pilots who haven't had an initial medical for many years.
People like you are not welcome in this business.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder, if this is why ppl / nppl nav is taught this way, a way of, keeping people, with limited understanding from flying ? and killing themselves, JUST A THOUGHT
You are on dangerous ground there, TV. You need to watch your back.
The way you are going, you will soon be questioning why the initial medical requirements are stricter than the renewal ones - even though the B747 taking you from Heathrow to NY is being flown by two pilots who haven't had an initial medical for many years.
People like you are not welcome in this business.
As I said, it was just a thought, and its not a buisness, I thought this section was Private Flying, its just fun, nothing more
You are on dangerous ground there, TV. You need to watch your back.
The way you are going, you will soon be questioning why the initial medical requirements are stricter than the renewal ones - even though the B747 taking you from Heathrow to NY is being flown by two pilots who haven't had an initial medical for many years.
People like you are not welcome in this business.
As I said, it was just a thought, and its not a buisness, I thought this section was Private Flying, its just fun, nothing more
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was kidding, Tangovictor
I think there is a great deal of elitism and "must separate the men from the sheep" in aviation - quite pointless when all that should matter is whether Joe Bloggs can fly safely.
I think there is a great deal of elitism and "must separate the men from the sheep" in aviation - quite pointless when all that should matter is whether Joe Bloggs can fly safely.
