How would YOU teach PPL nav?

[IO540]

I bet there have been lots of cases of flight into terrain in what would have been legal VMC, 3000m or 1500m (take your pick of the particular license privileges).

The most common fatal scud running situation probably is an entry into IMC but it's equally easy to get snookered into a no-way-out situation where there are hills all around. Add heavy rain or dense drizzle and there is little or no forward visibility, and bang! I guess this is why the FAA have the chandelle in the CPL - it's the ultimate way out of something like that.

The other day I flew a circling approach into a south coast airport, perfectly accurately I reckon, but with the GPWS going berserk (at least "she" has a nice voice) due to proximity of terrain, and I would never want to do this in rain.

Nice to have met you too Broomstick

On the main subject, this one will run and run.

At one end, we have the usual suspects, intimately familiar with their local area right down to knowing every sheep by her first name, and they can't see any reason for teaching anything beyond DR. Most of them never go very far. A few (very few) highly motivated (and I dare say way above average experienced and skilled) specimens have managed some really epic trips, and this is repeatedly used to support the argument that "you can go around the world with just a compass" etc.

At the other end, we have hundreds of major CAS busts every year, done by a fair cross-section of pilots. On top of that, we have many more pilots getting lost in a pretty decisive manner. Given that most new PPL holders chuck it in right more or less away, the cross-section of these people will include both newbies and old timers and everything in between. The fact is that DR fails to deliver the goods for the average pilot. Unfortunately this cannot be ignored because it is driving the regulatory pressure (mandatory Mode S etc).

In between the two, we have the average new PPL who is holding his piece of paper and is wondering what the hell he can do with it. It's a bit of a scary prospect. Stories of Euro 10,000 fines in France... He will have heard of GPS but doesn't dare use the 3-letter word in front of his instructor. GPS usage remains a mystery for many, with bollox scare stories about how you can get lost by pressing the wrong button, etc.

I don't see how GPS can be incorporated into PPL training without making installation mandatory in at least one plane per school, which they will resist fiercely.

My guess is that say 10-20 years hence, when most of today's spamcan fleet has been scrapped, GPS will be common in the training fleet and this will enable the modernisation.

[Fuji Abound]

I've been flying a variety of aircraft ranging from the standard aging basic trainers 7GCBC/PA28/PA38/C152/C172 to a shiny whizbang G1000 fully integrated/automated C182T. (timzsta - so it's not a c15x....but close :-) )

My expectation is that I need to be able to navigate with the minimal amount of reliance on the aircraft's systems this effectively means map, compass, ASI, timesource.

Why, oh why. I just don’t get to grips with this. However I accept it may be because you are new to aviation.

Aviation and sailing are completely different worlds in some ways. (Very similar in others).

In both yachts and aircraft GPS systems have improved enormously in terms of reliability. The Garmin unit I use has worked faultlessly for over 1,000 hours. If you follow certain basic rules concerning installation the kit is more reliable than most panel mounted stuff.

You should also appreciate that many panel mounted GPS are fully certified for en route navigation and for approaches. That sort of certification does not readily come about in aviation () unless the powers that be are really satisfied that the kit is reliable.

With a G1000 I have two independent certified panel mount GPS systems and as it happens I have two handheld GPSs in my flying bag. That is one hell of a lot of redundancy. I can only imagine a loss of GPS navigation if the signal is corrupted in some way.

In that event I still have two VORs receiver, and NDB receiver, and a DME.

When all of that fails I have two radios and one hand held to provide steers from whatever D and D, FIS, or RIS service that might be available.

.. .. .. and if all of that fails I suppose I could get our my pen, paper and map.

Compare that level of fit and redundancy with a typical yacht.

Moreover, and importantly whilst accepting that most of the GA fleet is not where near as well equipped, when you are 1,000 miles offshore en route to Barbados with the rally fleet you have no way of calling up for a fix and a steer.

Your expectation of having to navigate with minimal reliance on the aircraft systems is unrealistic in anything with a reasonable fit of navigational equipment - in 1,000s of hours flying it will not happen.

[Saab Dastard]

I don't see how GPS can be incorporated into PPL training without making installation mandatory in at least one plane per school, which they will resist fiercely.

Have to agree with that! Nail, head etc.

My guess is that say 10-20 years hence, when most of today's spamcan fleet has been scrapped, GPS will be common in the training fleet and this will enable the modernisation.

Not so sure here, though - it is entirely possible that even with glass cockpits, the student will be told to "ignore all that pretty stuff in the middle, all you need to look at is these old instruments around the edges..."

SD

[DFC]

foxmoth,

I agree that you are totally correct in saying that at an appropriate speed in VMC i.e. a speed that permits you to see atleast 2 minutes ahead and be in a positon that you do not need to look inside for very long, visually avoiding obstacles is no problem and you can quite safely fly below the level of the mast top in your example.

However, your answer straight away shows one of the most common areas of ppl VFR navigation that is misunderstood or not taught correctly and needs more standardisation and guidance from the CAA. The CAA has issued some guidance in that it reminded everyone that for VFR flights it is not a minimum safe level (something for IMC) but the minimum safe level to fly at.

Why? - Well as IO540 quite correctly pointed out, the basic PPL going IMC enroute is the quickest way (seconds the experts who have measured the average say) to loss of control and likely death.

What the level is used for is a line beyond which you will not normally go i.e. if you are forced to fly lower and lower by the weather in order to remain within your VFR weather minima then finding that you are being forced below the pre-planned minimum safe level is a great indication that it is now time to turn back / divert. If this is complied with promptly then (in the UK atleast) it is unlikely that you will be forced to fly lower than 500ft AGL while diverting to a suitable enroute alternate and thus be forced into a precautionary landing.

Coupled with this is the rather silly situation that many students present a navigation log (plog) that is very nicely planned and everything is there with one glaring problem (again not properly taught / understood by many of the trainers) - an alternate which requires one to fly past the destination!!!.................so I say "OK, you have C as your alternate because if the weather is less than VMC and you can not land at B, you will divert to C?" and the answer is a confident "Yes and I have the fuel required". Sorry but if the weather is below VMC in the area round B, please explain how you will pass it in VMC and get to C. (Yes I know there are circumstances when it is required - wind being a good one) but overall, the theory behind diversion planning is not taught correctly.

How many PPLs mark the half way mark on a 100nm flight from A to B at the 50nm mark? What use is that? if there is a head or tailwind component, at 50nm you are not equal time from A and B....thus faced with a diversion for say sick passenger or a slightly rough engine may not be made to the closest in terms of time aerodrome. Ask them if the aerodrome 50nm to the side of track is quicker in time terms than continuing to B or returning to A and most PPLs will have to resort to the wizz wheel whn a bit of simple chart marking would give an instant answer!

How many PPLs understand why there is no requirment for an alternate aerodrome on a VFR flight and how this works?

All these things are simple basic navigation issues that are usefull when properly used. But they are not covered in PPL training.

-------

IO540,

I agree with your point saying that navigation training needs to be more relevant. The UK must be one of the few places that every bit of the navigation training (with the exception of 1 exercise which is completed solo) is based on taking off from and landing back at the aerodrome of departure!!!

The Skill test requires the student to plan a basic triangular flight (two legs and at some stage expect a diversion) and off we go. This does not check the pilots planning at all and is of little value in checking pre-flight planning and execution of a normal flight from A (aerodrome) to B (aerodrome) that at some stage has to divert to C (suitable aerodrome). Sad thing is that the CPL is no better!!!

Is it no wonder then that the new PPL has not got a clue about how to actually complete a flight from A to B?

---------

Someone above asked that foreign AIPs be included in the training so that a pilot can use the French AIP or the German AIP when planning a trip abroad. Well once again we have highlighted another failing - Everyone who has passed Air Law and the Navigation exams (theory and practical) should know that every country's AIP is laid out in a standard format and if you find the information for XYZ in ENR 5.1 of the UK AIP then the same info for Germany will be in ENR 5.1 of the German AIP................but of course when most PPLs are using a Pooleys, AFE, Bottlang or other third party guide with probably never looking at the AIP in planning, one can see that many PPLs are straight away limited to the Pooleys coverage!

If you can navigate to a point over the horizon then in navigation terms there is noting to stop you repeating that as often as it takes to fly round the world. However, the Navigation subject is not simply about pointing the nose in the right direction, checking the time and after a quick correction, arriving at the point that was previously over the horizon.

Someone else mentioned that dreaded word - Lost!!

Define "lost".

I only know of 2 or 3 pilots that were lost and in all cases they were IMC or VMC with no ground contact.

If you are flying VFR in ground contact over Britain, unless you cross a large bit of water, you are still over Britain. Since you know you are over Britain then you are not lost since you know where you are. You may not be able to ensure that you are keeping within your planned limit of 5nm or 10nm of track and you may not be able to update your eta to within 3 minutes but you can quite quickly reduce the area from Britain to England to within a few counties.

Again how many PPLs are shown that if the wind is 30Kt or less and one flies at say 120Kt, even if you never look out the window, the most you can be off track is 30nm after 1 hour.........check where you are after 6 minutes and the most you can be off track is?

Navigation is taught as 90% practice (of limited skill sets) and 10% theory. It is actually 40% theory/ ground work/ practice, 40% confidence and 20% practice.

Could it be that the 90% / 10% system is more profitable for the schools?

The FAA did (perhaps they still do) require a PPL test candidate to plan a VFR flight from departure to a destination close to the endurance limit of the aircraft in 45 minutes. Great idea. Pitty, many PPLs on this side get through training with hours of "planning" for a 1 hour triangular flight in the local area.

Finally, I have heard several mantions of a 45 hour PPL course? No such thing under EASA / or JAR. The training sylabus for the PPL is far less - one simply needs 45 hours to get the licence. What is not often quantified is the amount of ground training required and as I said above "Navigation" should be mostly ground training.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

Fuji,

Are you saying that the method you use to determine the position of the aircraft (visual, radio, radar or satellite) is the only issue in Navigation?

Or are you saying that Navigation is different if you know you are over "Small Town" because you loked at the Map and identified it as "Small Town" or you see that the GPS says you are .0000001nm from "STOWN" or that you are on the 270 radial at 5nm from the Big VOR which puts you over Small Town or that the Radar unit you are talking to says you are over "Small Town".

I think all you are saying is that GPS will in the majority of cases be correct. But so will a well trained and well practiced map reader.

The GPS will not tell you that heading to fly to get to the next turn point over the horizon.

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

GPS is a source of (very usefull) infornation. It is not a "Navigator" and can not replace Navigation Skills.

The GPS is included in the PPL course. However, it has to be very generic because of the variety of units and methods of display etc.

DR and Visual Navigation are not the same thing. DR is something you rely on between fixes (seeing where you actually are). GPS, VOR/DME, the Map and Ground all give a constant indication of where you are. The amount of DR required depends on how long the time periods are between using the GPS or VOR/DME or Map and Ground to determine actual position. Following on from that, one can see that one can constantly check (look at) the source and have no DR or one can infrequently check the source and have a long period of DR. The balance has to be on how much DR is used to keep one self within the desired distance from track and how much time one spends "head inside" i.e. not looking out!

Regards,

DFC

[High Wing Drifter]

Fuji,

Thanks also for the complement, but I can assure you that compared to the people I have flown and trained with, I am not in any way exceptional. Just properly trained, which is the theme of this thread. Therefore, there is something wrong with the training given elsewhere.

IO,

I suspect the vast majority of CAS busts are down to planning. I'm not talking about three hours of intense study. I just mean sufficient consideration of chart, terrain, weather and operational considerations (just remember "C-TWO or C2"). This is the basic stuff that was mentioned earlier in the thread as lacking during training, such as how to use AIS, get an efficient PIB, know where to find information in the AIP/SUP, the relevance of the AICs, etc.

DFC,

I think you've identified a valid issue, which is lack of explanation as to why certain techniques are adopted. The ongoing confusion over VFR MSA is one such. Let it be said that in legal terms there is no such thing, so this is going to be somebodies hobby horse at the end of the day and judging by the frequent references to it on PPRUNE, many do not understand why they have that number. There is however, an objective description of the use of a notional MSA explained in the Safety Sense leaflets.


So can we add "Planning Resources" and "Technique Rationale" to the new PPRuNE certified syllabus?

[Contacttower]

Perhaps nav training should include much longer flights, some clubs offer closs channel check outs for PPLs, but why not include these in the intial training? It may seem excessive but if many people are stopping flying just because they haven't the confidence to go anywhere then they should be shown that actually long distance flying is not as daunting as it sounds. GPS would have to come into this.

Not so sure here, though - it is entirely possible that even with glass cockpits, the student will be told to "ignore all that pretty stuff in the middle, all you need to look at is these old instruments around the edges..."

I recently took a flight in a DA40 in California...full glass. People doing the PPL skills test in it are expected to use the GPS (it may fail though during the test ) with the assumption being that students must be taught how to make full use of everything in the cockpit. As long as they know how to deal with a failure its maddness to ignore GPS if you have it in the plane.

[foxmoth]

The CAA has issued some guidance in that it reminded everyone that for VFR flights it is not a minimum safe level (something for IMC) but the minimum safe level to fly at.

Quite agree, but this is not the 1,000 ft within 10nmls. I would agree totally with having a minimum height that you use as a nudge to decide to go on or not but the IMC minima is too often used instead of looking at things sensibly and can vary on situation - 800' cloudbase as you go over hills with 5 miles before destination that you have called up and is giving clear wx - no problem, same base but 30 miles to go and higher ground all the way ahead - maybe time to turn back. Many will also have a leg minimum height that is based on an obstacle near the start of the leg, IMC you need to do this, but VFR is it always sensible to use this (Sometimes it is in case you do need to turn back) They used to call this airmanship!

[AfricanEagle]

My two cents worth.

I may be living "out of time" but for me training should be good detailed basic dead reckoning training (compass, watch & map) and then how to use a gps as a back up.

I 've been all over southern Europe, from the Black Sea to Spain, using only maps, compass and watch, with the occasional ndb and vor for cross check. Never had a problem and have never busted any airspace (fellow flyers with gps often have on the same routing).

Regarding flying computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignoring the WCA and then turning over expected target and heading into the wind to find the target it is easly done and very effective (not useful though in cluttered airspace). Used it to get to Sarajevo once when sent up to FL105 on top in a C152 and the vor wasn't working and I didn't have a gps.

But my first instructor was a ex WWII bomber pilot and I was taught to feel the aeroplane, taste the wind, always be aware of my position, and to keep looking outside.

[Fuji Abound]

I think all you are saying is that GPS will in the majority of cases be correct. But so will a well trained and well practiced map reader.

Exactly, but note my emphasis.

The fact that so many infringements occur is because ground features are misidentified.

We have to be realistic.

How many hours does the average PPL fly a year?

How many of those hours are outside the local cabbage patch where, as IO said, they know every sheep personally?

The fact is GPS used correctly tells you 99.99% of the time precisely where you are and for that reason alone a generic appreciation of its use and the associated pitfalls should be in the syllabus.

[Contacttower]

should be in the syllabus.

I think we all pretty much agree on that...but as you've said earlier not all clubs have the equipment and what about those who still want to do their PPLs on Tiger Months and Super Cubs (which a few clubs still offer).

[IO540]

DFC wrote:

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

The above bits, DFC, show that you do not fly a plane. Maybe you used to (you once wrote you used to be a CAA examiner, which I can well believe) but you don't in the current model aircraft/equipment GA scene.

Any moving map GPS will show the airfields around you. The indication will not be wind corrected but for short distances this doesn't matter. The good ones, with an air data computer coupled, will show a wind corrected glide range perimeter, too.

Every GPS I have ever flown with which had a facility for loading a route into it (which was all of them - not the camping-shop junk which some pilots fly with) would show the ETA at destination, based on the programmed route ahead. The weakness there is that the projected ETA is based on the current GS but again that is immaterial for most UK flying. It matters on long legs across Europe, but few people will push their endurance that close to the line. The most I have ever seen was a change of ETA of about 20 mins due to the wind change over a 600nm route.

HWD - I agree re planning. I suspect most busts happen when somebody is either well lost or have departed from the planned route to look at something interesting...

Contacttower - how can you do a PPL on a tiger moth and still meet the instrument flight requirements of the PPL syllabus?

[Contacttower]

Contacttower - how can you do a PPL on a tiger moth and still meet the instrument flight requirements of the PPL syllabus?

I was wondering that myself...but Clacton Aero club offers PPL on the Super Cub and Cambridge on the Tiger Moth. Maybe they do the instrument flight on another plane or in the sim, I don't know? It is possible to do a 180 turn using just the slip and turn, clock and the compass so maybe thats how its done .

[foxmoth]

Certainly used to teach IF on Tiger Moths - they even had a hood that went right over the rear cockpit so you could not see out!

[Miraz]

Why, oh why. I just don’t get to grips with this.

1. Many of the aircraft I'm likely to fly are not kitted out with modern navaids - in theory at the completion of the ppl I'm qualified to set off cross country in them....so I'd like to be comfortable with the lowest common denominator.
2. Even if the kit is fitted, it still might break

In the event of a primary electrical failure then I've got 20-30 mins of standby power before losing everything except A/H, altimeter, airspeed and compass including all the radios. The avionics components themselves are pretty reliable, but it's still more difficult to guarantee power supply. It's not sufficiently unlikely that it's worth betting against is it?

Even if I'm lucky enough never to have anything critical go astray with the equipment, I'm still left with #1 - maybe there will come a point where it is just an intellectual exercise with little practical benefit, but I don't think we are there yet.

A fool with a tool is still a fool....

[Fuji Abound]

In the event of a primary electrical failure then I've got 20-30 mins of standby power before losing everything except A/H, altimeter, airspeed and compass including all the radios. The avionics components themselves are pretty reliable, but it's still more difficult to guarantee power supply. It's not sufficiently unlikely that it's worth betting against is it?

Yes, but analyse the scenario.

If you are flying with a G1000 you are probably left with an AI, a magnetic compass and an altimeter.

If you are in IMC that is an emergency, pure and simple. You would establish visual if you could, and if you couldn’t there are alternatives not relevant to this discussion.

Having got yourself visual, as you have indicated you have some standby power. You know where you are and will presumably divert to your nearest.

Whilst I would agree that would involve a modicum of very simple DR and visual navigation it is hardly difficult.

2wit I am not suggesting these basic skills should not be taught, more than the syllabus seeks to deliver a pilot that has been persuaded he is competent to set off on complex cross countries relying on DR and VN and not get "lost" and yet he is not equipped to use a GPS because its generic application has not been taught as part of the syllabus.

Of course I could add that you would whip out your spare GPS from your flight bag purchased on eBay for less than the cost of an hours flying .

[homeguard]

What next

I'm old enough to carry a certain amount of paranoia with regard to being slow to appreciate new technology and ideas. When challenged on threads such as these I give the arguements considerable thought. I have no wish to become a dyed in the wool philistine.
I understand the pro reasoning toward more emphasis on such as GPS. However, marvelous as GPS and the like are these tools are simply that, that is a tool for carrying out standard navigation more simply (perhaps) with all the data that you need at hand in the box. GPS is in many ways a convenience that does much of the work for you and why not, I agree.
Those of you who are disparaging of Dead Reckoning let me ask you this. If you delegate a task to another to do your work for you, do you - then not bother to have any knowledge of what is being done in your name? Or do you ensure that you have at least some basic knowledge of what is being done in your name? I would hope the later.
The basics of navigation must be taught and proven to a student by discovery - the definition of the the word 'discovery is the; gaining of knowledge from endeavor. From the knowledge which is practised comes true understanding and confidence in what you are undertaking.
The pitfuls and the benefits of VOR/ADF/GPS and Loran are with good basic grounding easily taught. How the individual box of GPS tricks work will vary until standardisation and each pilot, must to put simply, read the instruction manual. The owner will then know it as well as any instructor may.
My conclusion then is that basic navigation training must continue and therefore GPS etc could only be part of the additional navigation training already currently undertaken in Ex18-Radio Navigation.

[IO540]

My conclusion then is that basic navigation training must continue and therefore GPS etc could only be part of the additional navigation training already currently undertaken in Ex18-Radio Navigation.

I don't think anybody disagrees!

Miraz - this is not a problem. You either have a vacuum powered AI or an AI powered by a second alternator or something like that. So, with a handheld radio, and a handheld GPS, you have all you need to fly, navigate and communicate. IF somebody is flying IFR in actual IMC they must be appropriately prepared. Anyway, comms is not essential - that is what the lost comms procedure is for.

If one was flying a plane with an electric AI which is powered from the one and only bus (are there any like that???) and you were in IMC and you lost the electrics you would be stuffed - but that is not a realistic scenario. And if you lost the lot, in IMC, you would not be dead reckoning

[foxmoth]

If one was flying a plane with an electric AI which is powered from the one and only bus (are there any like that???) and you were in IMC and you lost the electrics you would be stuffed - but that is not a realistic scenario.

Yes there are actually many aircraft like that - but you are not "stuffed" because that is why you have a vacuum driven Turn indicator - you may then want to use your compass and stopwatch to get yourself to a safe area (e.g. over the sea) to let down.

[IO540]

Yes there are actually many aircraft like that - but you are not "stuffed" because that is why you have a vacuum driven Turn indicator

OK, but that's obviously the same scenario I described - one electric and one vac, and either is good enough to keep wings level.

One doesn't need a horizon - the altimeter or the ASI are each good enough for level flight.