How would YOU teach PPL nav?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are teaching someone to drive.
Once you've covered the basics of car handling and 'roadcraft', you teach them how to navigate.
Would you hand them a TomTom, show them how to enter their destination (postcode etc) and tell them to follow the instructions. Or would you hand them a road map and teach them how to use road signs?
In reality people are taught neither. Anybody can read signs with place names on them. But this is not a valid scenario, because TT is a completely different product to any non-road GPS. You could ignore the screen and just follow the voice prompts, and the upmarket products do just that. It's great for nav to a specific address.
What this has to do with aviation I have no idea.
It was used by helicopter pilots in the jungles of Vietnam
I think if they had GPS in Vietnam they would have used it immediately.
One has to get away from the "military viewpoint". In that business, one is working with a few hand picked pilots, the cream of the cream, after the other 98% have either been kicked out or became navigators. These people are highly trained, highly current (not as current in peacetime as we may think but a lot more current than the average PPL) and they can use all sorts of methods. They are also young and fast on the uptake - probably under half the average PPL age. Their final saviour is that nowadays they don't have to fight any real wars (the Americans do the dirty work now, using GPS) and you can be certain the enemy will be using GPS - if it hasn't been jammed locally.
The average PPL has little hope of becoming good at visual navigation alone, in today's airspace structure, and the 3-digit # annually of CAS busts proves it. On top of that you have loads of people who are simply lost but somehow managed to stay in Class G so that's OK.
However, as I mentioned earlier, we can wish for this and that but it isn't going to come - because the training business will not go for a more expensive PPL.
Once you've covered the basics of car handling and 'roadcraft', you teach them how to navigate.
Would you hand them a TomTom, show them how to enter their destination (postcode etc) and tell them to follow the instructions. Or would you hand them a road map and teach them how to use road signs?
In reality people are taught neither. Anybody can read signs with place names on them. But this is not a valid scenario, because TT is a completely different product to any non-road GPS. You could ignore the screen and just follow the voice prompts, and the upmarket products do just that. It's great for nav to a specific address.
What this has to do with aviation I have no idea.
It was used by helicopter pilots in the jungles of Vietnam
I think if they had GPS in Vietnam they would have used it immediately.
One has to get away from the "military viewpoint". In that business, one is working with a few hand picked pilots, the cream of the cream, after the other 98% have either been kicked out or became navigators. These people are highly trained, highly current (not as current in peacetime as we may think but a lot more current than the average PPL) and they can use all sorts of methods. They are also young and fast on the uptake - probably under half the average PPL age. Their final saviour is that nowadays they don't have to fight any real wars (the Americans do the dirty work now, using GPS) and you can be certain the enemy will be using GPS - if it hasn't been jammed locally.
The average PPL has little hope of becoming good at visual navigation alone, in today's airspace structure, and the 3-digit # annually of CAS busts proves it. On top of that you have loads of people who are simply lost but somehow managed to stay in Class G so that's OK.
However, as I mentioned earlier, we can wish for this and that but it isn't going to come - because the training business will not go for a more expensive PPL.
) Why can't both dead reckoning and GPS be on the PPL?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What they started doing was flying their computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignore the WCA. Then when Ded Reckoning said they should be over the LZ, they only had to turn and head INTO the wind to find the LZ.
FF
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't believe it either, so tried it and it WORKS!!!!
Yes, I forgot I was addressing a largely UK audience.....
It works particularly well when you have 600+ miles of Class G over largely uniform, uninhabited Canadian bush.
Airspace bust??? I have to land and refuel at least once before I can even get close to such a thing..... unless I can get my J3 up to 16,000'......
It works particularly well when you have 600+ miles of Class G over largely uniform, uninhabited Canadian bush.
Airspace bust??? I have to land and refuel at least once before I can even get close to such a thing..... unless I can get my J3 up to 16,000'......
It's called using an analogy to demonstrate a point.
But I've noticed, IO540, that as someone who is so critical of the current system, you haven't actually proposed any realistic alternatives when presented the opportunity. Why is that?
But I've noticed, IO540, that as someone who is so critical of the current system, you haven't actually proposed any realistic alternatives when presented the opportunity. Why is that?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which way or that
For me there is only one way. That is for the student to thoroughly research the routes to the destination and make correct choices. Virtually all potential in flight problems can be identified in the planning room and resolved there. At the very least plan 'B's should be put in place. A major learning curve for the student is to achieve good cockpit management but also to develop a good standand of reasoned decision making whilst in flight. That is what a PLOG is for! A PLOG is the students 'action plan'. Having planned well they are then free to concentrate on flying the aircraft accurately and looking and listening out. NOT continously staring at lots of chinagraph scribbles on their map which, in my experience, can lead to a sophisticated kind of track crawling at best and at worst a total loss of spatial awareness.
By pre-planning thoroughly and preparing a detailed PLOG they are able to assess much better in flight track errors and begin to understand the volitile nature of the wind any resulting drift off track. As some have already said the full time military Tyro will probably be young and carefully selected for the task. They will also have at least 90 hours of flight instruction (using civil logging times) and have full time groundschool. The civil student comes to flying cold, in most cases and be from 14-65 years of age and from different backgrounds and levels of education and have just 45 hours of syllabus, although from statistics they will average 60 hours to completion, within the UK and world wide.
With regard to GPS and the like. I understand that LORAN is on the up once again but now will also drive moving maps. Of course all of these tools are fantastic but I also agree that they should require specific training as is currently required for VOR and NDB usage.
The 'whiz-wheel' - taking into account all the arguements for it, is also outdated. Although in replacing the whiz-wheel it should be replaced with a better knowledge of the 1:60 (radians) than at present. Understanding 1:60 (better done by in-flight experiences - called 'discovery') i'm convinced gives the student a much greater depth of understanding of GPS and its functions.
I'm for the PLOG and Dead-Reckoning but to emphasise im not a philistine so leading on to the later use of GPS etc.
By pre-planning thoroughly and preparing a detailed PLOG they are able to assess much better in flight track errors and begin to understand the volitile nature of the wind any resulting drift off track. As some have already said the full time military Tyro will probably be young and carefully selected for the task. They will also have at least 90 hours of flight instruction (using civil logging times) and have full time groundschool. The civil student comes to flying cold, in most cases and be from 14-65 years of age and from different backgrounds and levels of education and have just 45 hours of syllabus, although from statistics they will average 60 hours to completion, within the UK and world wide.
With regard to GPS and the like. I understand that LORAN is on the up once again but now will also drive moving maps. Of course all of these tools are fantastic but I also agree that they should require specific training as is currently required for VOR and NDB usage.
The 'whiz-wheel' - taking into account all the arguements for it, is also outdated. Although in replacing the whiz-wheel it should be replaced with a better knowledge of the 1:60 (radians) than at present. Understanding 1:60 (better done by in-flight experiences - called 'discovery') i'm convinced gives the student a much greater depth of understanding of GPS and its functions.
I'm for the PLOG and Dead-Reckoning but to emphasise im not a philistine so leading on to the later use of GPS etc.
There have been various comments/criticisms over the last few months/years about the way navigation is taught on the PPL course (Hi IO540 
) Criticisms of the whizzwheel, why no GPS etc etc etc. OK, if you could change the nav syllabus, how would you teach it? What would you include/take out/put in? Bear in mind you'll have to include emergency procedures for when electrics, batteries etc fail. And what to do when you have no PC access on a small airfield in France, for instance. And you can't just say something is rubbish; you have to come up with a better way.
) Criticisms of the whizzwheel, why no GPS etc etc etc. OK, if you could change the nav syllabus, how would you teach it? What would you include/take out/put in? Bear in mind you'll have to include emergency procedures for when electrics, batteries etc fail. And what to do when you have no PC access on a small airfield in France, for instance. And you can't just say something is rubbish; you have to come up with a better way.The analogy was fine, thanks. You just didn't like the message that it was sending out. (If you must, think of the 'magenta line' as the aviation equivalent of voice prompts.)
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
I would add a couple of things to the list:
Sure, these are Planning matters, but we all know that PPPPPP, don't we?
SD
- How to use the AIS website PROPERLY for obtaining NOTAMS (narrow route, at least) and perhaps also for aerodrome charts (although an up-to-date Pooleys / Jepp is just as useful).
- How to get weather briefings from the internet (and possibly VOLMET).
Sure, these are Planning matters, but we all know that PPPPPP, don't we?
SD
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll defend tradition!
Two years ago, I was invited along on a trip to la belle France. The CPL pilot (non-handling) had only been to France once and the owner/driver, had about 180hrs TT. Almost all time, post PPL training, was in his new airframe.
So my role was "quiet chap in the back who has been o/seas several times, has filled in loads of Flight Plans and Gen Decs". Backseat also 'cos I'm not rotary qualified.
We lifted and set course, the two chaps up front quickly got us going. They were doing so well, until I realised that they were following a magenta cursor. That was good until I realised that we were about to pop through the o/head of a minor a/g airfield and neither had any intention of using the very expensive radio.
"Would it not be a good time to call xxxx radio?", I opportuned.
"Good idea! Where are they and when?"
"Ah, 3 miles dead ahead and we are only at 1200', freq is nnn.nnn"
------
"Chaps, STN zone descends near Ware, should we not ought to be a bit lower?"
------
Later: Heh, Stik, how did you know about that a/f, and how did you know about the CTR descending just ahead of us?
Well it was on the chart, remember we all drew the same lines on our respective bits of paper? I just ran my finger down the line at the same rate as we approached things!
After the flight was over, I chided the CPL about over-reliance on the Garmin.
Two weeks later, CPL could not find my strip 'cause he'd had not programmed the co-ords. Two weeks after that, owner/driver on approach to mine put down in a field 1.25 miles away, because he'd inserted a 6 when it should have been a 9 in a waypoint! Strip suggests a long enough bit of land for take-off/landing The farm worker's cottage garden had a 40x40' back lawn!
Great bits of kit as support but you need to teach real nav first.
Yes - I think we go way overboard on the whizz-wheel, post PPL skils test, I have NEVER used one in the air. Snapping for the turn (1:60) and easy-peasy-lemon-sqeezy course convergence tricks that Beagle attested to will NEVER let you down.
Stik
Still smiling after today's Mustang trip!
Two years ago, I was invited along on a trip to la belle France. The CPL pilot (non-handling) had only been to France once and the owner/driver, had about 180hrs TT. Almost all time, post PPL training, was in his new airframe.
So my role was "quiet chap in the back who has been o/seas several times, has filled in loads of Flight Plans and Gen Decs". Backseat also 'cos I'm not rotary qualified.
We lifted and set course, the two chaps up front quickly got us going. They were doing so well, until I realised that they were following a magenta cursor. That was good until I realised that we were about to pop through the o/head of a minor a/g airfield and neither had any intention of using the very expensive radio.
"Would it not be a good time to call xxxx radio?", I opportuned.
"Good idea! Where are they and when?"
"Ah, 3 miles dead ahead and we are only at 1200', freq is nnn.nnn"
------
"Chaps, STN zone descends near Ware, should we not ought to be a bit lower?"
------
Later: Heh, Stik, how did you know about that a/f, and how did you know about the CTR descending just ahead of us?
Well it was on the chart, remember we all drew the same lines on our respective bits of paper? I just ran my finger down the line at the same rate as we approached things!
After the flight was over, I chided the CPL about over-reliance on the Garmin.
Two weeks later, CPL could not find my strip 'cause he'd had not programmed the co-ords. Two weeks after that, owner/driver on approach to mine put down in a field 1.25 miles away, because he'd inserted a 6 when it should have been a 9 in a waypoint! Strip suggests a long enough bit of land for take-off/landing The farm worker's cottage garden had a 40x40' back lawn!
Great bits of kit as support but you need to teach real nav first.
Yes - I think we go way overboard on the whizz-wheel, post PPL skils test, I have NEVER used one in the air. Snapping for the turn (1:60) and easy-peasy-lemon-sqeezy course convergence tricks that Beagle attested to will NEVER let you down.
Stik
Still smiling after today's Mustang trip!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i totally agree with most written on this thread, however, I'll always think of my instructor, who insisted everytime I had a lesson, and almost every 10 mins ,to know the following
1, where's the wind coming from
2, where's the sun in relation to our start position
so simple, yet easily overlooked by new pilots
1, where's the wind coming from
2, where's the sun in relation to our start position
so simple, yet easily overlooked by new pilots
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR is outdated
Dead reckoning might be outdated, but it gets you there when everything else fails.
Having said that, here's my proposals:
* A bit less emphasis on the CRP-5
and a bit more focus on GPS as part of a modern cockpit, not forgetting the other nav instruments (yes, I agree GPS also has its place along with DR, it's not an either/or choice)* More emphasis on practical flight planning, as S.D. said (weather briefing, AIS, NOTAMs, flight plans, etc.)
* More emphasis on using FIS when available/applicable. It's there and it's free, so might as well use it.
The military method doesn't require Buck Rogers after all the unsuitables have been weeded out. It's a simple technique born of experience because when things are getting difficult, the simple techniques are the ones that work.
Quite simply put, the technique I was teaching as an RAF QFI (a few years ago now mind you, but I doub't it has changed) was that if you start from a known point, fly accurately for a kown time having made sensible wind corrections, you will arrive at your next point, or very close so that you can see it. Sounds simple, that's because it is!
The things which will make you miss your next turning point are not flying accurately and getting distracted. An example: One student of mine was a real 'map crawler'. He couldn't fly anywhere without constant reference to his map. One day, I insisted he put the map on the coming face down where I could see it and only pick it up when he was supposed to (1 minute before the next event in this technique). Then I noticed the reflection of another map in the canopy - he had photocopied it an was using the copy! (It was a tandem aircraft with a blast screen between the cockpits so I couldn't confiscate the second map. So on the next trip, I took his map, cut out the turning points and the check points and pasted them on a sheet of A3 in the appropriate places and made him use that. His technique improved immeasuarbly and he got his navigation sorted out.
Teach the basics first, because an understanding of the basics is relevant to any elecetronic technique.
And a bit about GPS. GPS is owned by the US DoD and is their plaything. They're not worried about the bad guys using it because they still have complete control over it. The signals are actually transmitted over two frequncies. The ones you and I use and the separate military only frequencies which you can only receive if you have the correct receiver with the current encryption de-code. GPS signals can be 'slewed'. This was always the case when SA (Selective Availability) was pernamently turned on. Now this has been removed, the GPS is more accurate. But SA can be switched on at any time on the civil frequency and you can bet your donkey that it will be working overtime in any conflict area - to the tune of many miles is my guess! And of course, the signals can be jammed easliy.
Quite simply put, the technique I was teaching as an RAF QFI (a few years ago now mind you, but I doub't it has changed) was that if you start from a known point, fly accurately for a kown time having made sensible wind corrections, you will arrive at your next point, or very close so that you can see it. Sounds simple, that's because it is!
The things which will make you miss your next turning point are not flying accurately and getting distracted. An example: One student of mine was a real 'map crawler'. He couldn't fly anywhere without constant reference to his map. One day, I insisted he put the map on the coming face down where I could see it and only pick it up when he was supposed to (1 minute before the next event in this technique). Then I noticed the reflection of another map in the canopy - he had photocopied it an was using the copy! (It was a tandem aircraft with a blast screen between the cockpits so I couldn't confiscate the second map. So on the next trip, I took his map, cut out the turning points and the check points and pasted them on a sheet of A3 in the appropriate places and made him use that. His technique improved immeasuarbly and he got his navigation sorted out.
Teach the basics first, because an understanding of the basics is relevant to any elecetronic technique.
And a bit about GPS. GPS is owned by the US DoD and is their plaything. They're not worried about the bad guys using it because they still have complete control over it. The signals are actually transmitted over two frequncies. The ones you and I use and the separate military only frequencies which you can only receive if you have the correct receiver with the current encryption de-code. GPS signals can be 'slewed'. This was always the case when SA (Selective Availability) was pernamently turned on. Now this has been removed, the GPS is more accurate. But SA can be switched on at any time on the civil frequency and you can bet your donkey that it will be working overtime in any conflict area - to the tune of many miles is my guess! And of course, the signals can be jammed easliy.
I confess to being one of those track crawlers -- put a line on the map and stay on it. Works just fine in Southern Ontario and NE USA during the day.
A bit of a different story in a glider without one of those fancy computers and you're hopscotching between likely looking clouds and over an unfamiliar area while trying to get somewhere or back home.
First you have to figure where you are -- then you can work out an angle over the road grid.
That's if you're in a glider with legs In a low performance machine, you're just looking for the likeliest lift in the general direction
A bit of a different story in a glider without one of those fancy computers and you're hopscotching between likely looking clouds and over an unfamiliar area while trying to get somewhere or back home.
First you have to figure where you are -- then you can work out an angle over the road grid.
That's if you're in a glider with legs
In a low performance machine, you're just looking for the likeliest lift in the general direction
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand
Hi,
I don't understand the acronyms in this:
Which suggests that you just fly magnetic, then after time to destination, you simply fly into the wind and you arrive at that point ? Is that true ? Intriguingly it would certainly work with a full head \ tail wind. Not sure if it would for a cross wind ?
Does that really work ? I may give it a go on Saturday (nowhere near CAS, on the South Coast so lots of visual clues)
I don't understand the acronyms in this:
What they started doing was flying their computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignore the WCA. Then when Ded Reckoning said they should be over the LZ, they only had to turn and head INTO the wind to find the LZ.
Does that really work ? I may give it a go on Saturday (nowhere near CAS, on the South Coast so lots of visual clues)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my line of business (Reservoir Engineering) we have two skill sets. Those of us who learnt the job in the oilfield, in the text books, understood the theory then along came PC's, spreadsheets, simulators which were a fantastic aid and a superior tool in terms of speed and accuracy.
There are also those who have learnt exclusively over the last 5-10 years through PC technology and some have never even seen an oil rig in the flesh.
We both do the same job and use the same resources but only one set knows what is REALLY going on inside the boxes of tricks and is easily able to spot anomalies, miscalculations, errors and can still do a days work when Big Brother decides we have no computers and email for a day!
There are also those who have learnt exclusively over the last 5-10 years through PC technology and some have never even seen an oil rig in the flesh.
We both do the same job and use the same resources but only one set knows what is REALLY going on inside the boxes of tricks and is easily able to spot anomalies, miscalculations, errors and can still do a days work when Big Brother decides we have no computers and email for a day!
The Original Whirly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let's try to summarise what we've got so far...
Stik and several others - what's wrong with the present system?
BEagle, FFF et all - present system (but maybe do it better) plus navaids (though they are in the PPL course already) plus GPS.
Nipper (and maybe one or two others) - basically GPS, with a bit of the basic theory thrown in. Great idea, but I suspect the student would call Mayday if the GPS failed - I couldn't follow your basic theory bit, and I knew what you were saying!
IO540 - the present system is crap, but I can't come up with a better one. So I'll carry on telling you all ad infinitum that the present system is crap.
I have a couple of questions/thoughts, that have been touched on, but not really covered...
Doesn't it matter to a certain extent what aircraft you fly, and where?
It also works well in much of the UK. I'm still wondering why track crawling is universally knocked. You won't bust Stansted and Luton when flying between them if you recognise every town, every village, every main road. With practice, the ground looks like the map, so you know where you are. It also works well in small helicopters and microlights, or probably any other aircraft which flies at that kind of speed. And if you don't teach it, in my experience students carry on following a heading when a massive feature right on their track is a mile or so off to the side, and flying straight to it would be the obvious option. But in faster aircraft and another part of the world, eg the desert, this obviously won't work well.
Why the Plog/non-plog controversy? You either write on your map (plus a notpad, says BEagle) or you write on a form. You don't stare fixedly at either. It's a personal preference, surely.
I don't have an answer myself. I don't think I was taught nav very well initially, but I learned what works through experience. But I have difficulty teaching it in a way which students find really comprehensible. I'm not sure what would help.
Stik and several others - what's wrong with the present system?
BEagle, FFF et all - present system (but maybe do it better) plus navaids (though they are in the PPL course already) plus GPS.
Nipper (and maybe one or two others) - basically GPS, with a bit of the basic theory thrown in. Great idea, but I suspect the student would call Mayday if the GPS failed - I couldn't follow your basic theory bit, and I knew what you were saying!
IO540 - the present system is crap, but I can't come up with a better one. So I'll carry on telling you all ad infinitum that the present system is crap.
I have a couple of questions/thoughts, that have been touched on, but not really covered...
Doesn't it matter to a certain extent what aircraft you fly, and where?
I confess to being one of those track crawlers -- put a line on the map and stay on it. Works just fine in Southern Ontario and NE USA during the day.
You won't bust Stansted and Luton when flying between them if you recognise every town, every village, every main road. With practice, the ground looks like the map, so you know where you are. It also works well in small helicopters and microlights, or probably any other aircraft which flies at that kind of speed. And if you don't teach it, in my experience students carry on following a heading when a massive feature right on their track is a mile or so off to the side, and flying straight to it would be the obvious option. But in faster aircraft and another part of the world, eg the desert, this obviously won't work well. Why the Plog/non-plog controversy? You either write on your map (plus a notpad, says BEagle) or you write on a form. You don't stare fixedly at either. It's a personal preference, surely.
I don't have an answer myself. I don't think I was taught nav very well initially, but I learned what works through experience. But I have difficulty teaching it in a way which students find really comprehensible. I'm not sure what would help.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nav training
Hi Whirls,
Ooh I could say an awful lot about this subject. However, I shall confine myself to one area of comment, albeit a long one.
I think there is an elephant in the room that nobody is talking about perhaps because nobody has noticed him.
The key to his location is in IO540's comment that you are all like a bunch of engineers who think nobody could possibly not want their new invention. Combine this with er34790'scomment on off track navigation and FullyFlapped's comment about this approach leading to airspace busts, then er34790 saying he had forgotten he was speaking to a predominantly UK audience. (No criticism of any of these guys intended by the way: they're all right in their way).
The elephant's name, (topically enough,) is 'Fitness for Purpose'. But what purpose? The PPL is an ICAO licence and entitles you to fly worldwide. But most actual flying, and therefore instruction, taking place in the UK today is fit only for flying in UK airspace where most flight legs are under 100 nm (more like 50nm) and the pilot's biggest concern is remaining legal in VFR and clear of other traffic often in some of the busiest airspace in the world.
Let me give you a simple example. When revalidating my PPL recently, I was told to ignore deviation in my navigation calculations. This is fine in the UK. Here, when planning your flight you can even get away with guessing your track rather than measuring it. However, if I was going to fly a 600nm leg over featureless desert in Southern Africa, or over water, I feel I would be most unwise not to take deviation into account. We all know the 1:60 rule. One degree out for 60 miles puts you one mile off track. A deviation of 2 degrees, which is quite possible in many aircraft, over 600nm will put you 20 miles off track.
Some will say, don't worry, you have your GPS. But GPS cannot be relied upon the way DR can. Batteries fail, software crashes, signals cannot be guaranteed to be received. And in a lot of the kinds of places I refer to, there may be no VOR to fall back on. There are now perhaps thousands of PPLs and NPPLs in the UK who have never used Deviation and would not know how to use the deviation chart provided in every aeroplane. And at least some of these will go on a flying touring holiday to, say, South Africa, Canada, Australia etc.
What I wonder is whether we ought not to have a system like the yachting world has, with different qualifications for different levels of activity. Their system starts with 'day skipper' and then goes to 'coastal skipper', and then I suppose to other levels that I am not acquainted with. For example, I wonder if there is a case for a seperate nav rating for European touring requiring the pilot to know how to plan a flight using the local AIP in any EU country and knowing how to find and use local procedures for trips through France, Germany, etc.
Broomstick.
Ooh I could say an awful lot about this subject. However, I shall confine myself to one area of comment, albeit a long one.
I think there is an elephant in the room that nobody is talking about perhaps because nobody has noticed him.
The key to his location is in IO540's comment that you are all like a bunch of engineers who think nobody could possibly not want their new invention. Combine this with er34790'scomment on off track navigation and FullyFlapped's comment about this approach leading to airspace busts, then er34790 saying he had forgotten he was speaking to a predominantly UK audience. (No criticism of any of these guys intended by the way: they're all right in their way).
The elephant's name, (topically enough,) is 'Fitness for Purpose'. But what purpose? The PPL is an ICAO licence and entitles you to fly worldwide. But most actual flying, and therefore instruction, taking place in the UK today is fit only for flying in UK airspace where most flight legs are under 100 nm (more like 50nm) and the pilot's biggest concern is remaining legal in VFR and clear of other traffic often in some of the busiest airspace in the world.
Let me give you a simple example. When revalidating my PPL recently, I was told to ignore deviation in my navigation calculations. This is fine in the UK. Here, when planning your flight you can even get away with guessing your track rather than measuring it. However, if I was going to fly a 600nm leg over featureless desert in Southern Africa, or over water, I feel I would be most unwise not to take deviation into account. We all know the 1:60 rule. One degree out for 60 miles puts you one mile off track. A deviation of 2 degrees, which is quite possible in many aircraft, over 600nm will put you 20 miles off track.
Some will say, don't worry, you have your GPS. But GPS cannot be relied upon the way DR can. Batteries fail, software crashes, signals cannot be guaranteed to be received. And in a lot of the kinds of places I refer to, there may be no VOR to fall back on. There are now perhaps thousands of PPLs and NPPLs in the UK who have never used Deviation and would not know how to use the deviation chart provided in every aeroplane. And at least some of these will go on a flying touring holiday to, say, South Africa, Canada, Australia etc.
What I wonder is whether we ought not to have a system like the yachting world has, with different qualifications for different levels of activity. Their system starts with 'day skipper' and then goes to 'coastal skipper', and then I suppose to other levels that I am not acquainted with. For example, I wonder if there is a case for a seperate nav rating for European touring requiring the pilot to know how to plan a flight using the local AIP in any EU country and knowing how to find and use local procedures for trips through France, Germany, etc.
Broomstick.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the US switching it off - it isn't going to happen. Virtually ALL shipping these days RELIES on GPS for their navigation. Nowadays no one is on the bridge ticking off DR positions routinely. GPS is used for surveying - building Wembly stadium, bridges, motorways, positioning oil rigs, sending divers down to the bottom of the North Sea, laying stuff highly accurately on the seabed, aeroplanes, helicopters etc....everyone uses it.
It is almost criminal that training aeroplanes don't have fitted even a basic moving map GPS, which costs sub £1000. Certainly a lot of airspace busts could have been avoided by use of a GPS and a GPS training syllabus.
Anyway my answer to the question would be:
1) Teach basic DR nav (but don't spend too long on it - they can explore this further once they have the PPL).
2) Teach pilotage and "map recognition"
3) Teach GPS usage and cross referencing to the map
4) Teach basic radio nav using onboard instruments (VOR / NDB - i.e. how to get a fix)
5) Teach proper pre-flight planning (even Google Earth has a role to play in pre-flight planning these days)
Change the PPL syllabus to include the nav element via GPS, followed by a simulated failure and "pilotage" (and / or radio nav) to an alternate, with partial recovery of the GPS after a time and expecting the student to draw a position fix from lat and long on the chart and to compare it to their estimated position. This sounds a reasonable syllabus which would properly prepare the candidate for 21st century flying....
It is almost criminal that training aeroplanes don't have fitted even a basic moving map GPS, which costs sub £1000. Certainly a lot of airspace busts could have been avoided by use of a GPS and a GPS training syllabus.
Anyway my answer to the question would be:
1) Teach basic DR nav (but don't spend too long on it - they can explore this further once they have the PPL).
2) Teach pilotage and "map recognition"
3) Teach GPS usage and cross referencing to the map
4) Teach basic radio nav using onboard instruments (VOR / NDB - i.e. how to get a fix)
5) Teach proper pre-flight planning (even Google Earth has a role to play in pre-flight planning these days)
Change the PPL syllabus to include the nav element via GPS, followed by a simulated failure and "pilotage" (and / or radio nav) to an alternate, with partial recovery of the GPS after a time and expecting the student to draw a position fix from lat and long on the chart and to compare it to their estimated position. This sounds a reasonable syllabus which would properly prepare the candidate for 21st century flying....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All kinds of deviation
Broomstick
You make the valid point. Our job is to teach the prospective PPL holder the basics, the principles on which all things that follow are based. A technique usable anywhere at any time. The newcomer has a lot of mis-comprehensions to turn around and new concepts to overcome. Such as; when airborne they travel with the air - wind. When on the ground the air simply passes them by but now, airborne, they go with it. Obvious to the navigator but not always to them.
In my book it is important for the student to fully plan a flight and prepare a plog against which they can more clearly assess track errors and times (ground speed). Track errors should be allowed to develop until they can be measured (drift lines - like it or not are the simplest method) at a predetermined point (Pinpoint) and a reasoned calculation then made (so many techniques can be applied but not part of this arguement). It should be noted that the CAA Chief Examiner has put out a request that 'regain track' should be employed and I agree with him.
It should be remembered that the needle within a VOR display is a Course Deviation Indicator (CDI) not as some use it, something to follow, I hear some call the CDI a 'command indicator', but there is only one commander in an aircraft and that is the pilot - it can never be a needle. I, too many times, observe a technique, whether VOR or GPS, which includes continuesly rolling from side to side (often as not without rudder input) in an attempt to maintain track, the needle in the middle or the symbal on the line (GPS). I can only imagine they have many sick and dis-orientated passengers who never wish to go flying a second time.
You make the valid point. Our job is to teach the prospective PPL holder the basics, the principles on which all things that follow are based. A technique usable anywhere at any time. The newcomer has a lot of mis-comprehensions to turn around and new concepts to overcome. Such as; when airborne they travel with the air - wind. When on the ground the air simply passes them by but now, airborne, they go with it. Obvious to the navigator but not always to them.
In my book it is important for the student to fully plan a flight and prepare a plog against which they can more clearly assess track errors and times (ground speed). Track errors should be allowed to develop until they can be measured (drift lines - like it or not are the simplest method) at a predetermined point (Pinpoint) and a reasoned calculation then made (so many techniques can be applied but not part of this arguement). It should be noted that the CAA Chief Examiner has put out a request that 'regain track' should be employed and I agree with him.
It should be remembered that the needle within a VOR display is a Course Deviation Indicator (CDI) not as some use it, something to follow, I hear some call the CDI a 'command indicator', but there is only one commander in an aircraft and that is the pilot - it can never be a needle. I, too many times, observe a technique, whether VOR or GPS, which includes continuesly rolling from side to side (often as not without rudder input) in an attempt to maintain track, the needle in the middle or the symbal on the line (GPS). I can only imagine they have many sick and dis-orientated passengers who never wish to go flying a second time.