How would YOU teach PPL nav?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a slightly different note....has anyone ever been taught a formula of rule of thumb for how far something is an (airfield for example) from the aircraft if it's sitting on the wingtip/half way down the wing? (considering height and wing length). I'm not aware of one but it struck me while flying today that if you were keen on some super accurate dead reckoning then it might be useful.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sight angle would work and could be used if you "calibrated" your aircraft references.
However, it gets a bit more complicated because for a certain position sighted on the wing, you have a variable distance depending on height above the point you want the distance to.
Far easier to see where you are over and use your calibrated thumb on the map.
Regards,
DFC
However, it gets a bit more complicated because for a certain position sighted on the wing, you have a variable distance depending on height above the point you want the distance to.
Far easier to see where you are over and use your calibrated thumb on the map.
Regards,
DFC
By the time I finished my skills test for my JAR-PPL, I had learned a whole lot about RNAV, discovered that my cockpit housekeeping was dire and learned that I knew about 10% of the nav techniques that I really needed to know.
Then someone pinched my whizzwheel, so I sat down and figured out an automated PLOG in Excel, complete with TAS calculations track and heading information. I determined the heading correction algorithm from first principles and subsequently discovered it was all in Wikipedia. Now, I can input waypoint lat/long, weather info and altitude on Excel (using my smartphone if necessary) and generate a printable PLOG within minutes.
OK, so I'm sure you can buy this software ready-made, but the point is the whole thing was a learning exercise. I knew from the very start of my PPL flying that I didn't have a good method yet and it needed more work, so I worked on it - and still am.
Now, I haven't flown as much as I'd like since due being stuck in India too much of the time, but I have subsequently converted my JAR to an Austalian PPL. I did two navex's before my Aus flight test using this - planning is quick and effective and I can validate the numbers on my chart with my thumb and eyeball.
What's my point? I guess it is that if you are really committed to flying post-GST, you will find methods that work for you. The basics will still start from dead reckoning. I still haven't bought a GPS but I guess I will one day - hopefully a panel mount for an RV-8!
Till then, the methods that I use now will continue to be refined as and when I find the time to use them.
I have already learned a few more things to consider from reading this thread, but isn't that a (PPL) pilot's life? Continuously learning and updating skills?
A
Then someone pinched my whizzwheel, so I sat down and figured out an automated PLOG in Excel, complete with TAS calculations track and heading information. I determined the heading correction algorithm from first principles and subsequently discovered it was all in Wikipedia. Now, I can input waypoint lat/long, weather info and altitude on Excel (using my smartphone if necessary) and generate a printable PLOG within minutes.
OK, so I'm sure you can buy this software ready-made, but the point is the whole thing was a learning exercise. I knew from the very start of my PPL flying that I didn't have a good method yet and it needed more work, so I worked on it - and still am.
Now, I haven't flown as much as I'd like since due being stuck in India too much of the time, but I have subsequently converted my JAR to an Austalian PPL. I did two navex's before my Aus flight test using this - planning is quick and effective and I can validate the numbers on my chart with my thumb and eyeball.
What's my point? I guess it is that if you are really committed to flying post-GST, you will find methods that work for you. The basics will still start from dead reckoning. I still haven't bought a GPS but I guess I will one day - hopefully a panel mount for an RV-8!
Till then, the methods that I use now will continue to be refined as and when I find the time to use them.I have already learned a few more things to consider from reading this thread, but isn't that a (PPL) pilot's life? Continuously learning and updating skills?
A
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was teaching the PPL I would get everybody to have a copy of Navbox.
One still uses the printed chart for the planning w.r.t. airspace and obstacles/terrain but would use Navbox to generate the plog, w&b, etc.
Today's new pilots are mostly very adept with technology.
One still uses the printed chart for the planning w.r.t. airspace and obstacles/terrain but would use Navbox to generate the plog, w&b, etc.
Today's new pilots are mostly very adept with technology.
although I think the point that both IO540 and myself were making very badly is that you can do it this way, but since it takes you 10 hours of planning to fly 1 hour, you will soon discover the merits of getting the electrons to do the number-crunching...
Andy,
I don't dispute that for a second. I am fully aware of how you can use technology to help speed up your planning (as I do most days for work.)
However, what IO540 seems to fail to appreciate (again) is the need for the PPL training syllabus to cater for the lowest common dominator ie those who don't have access to a PC! Or, indeed, those who don't have access to a GPS.
I don't dispute that for a second. I am fully aware of how you can use technology to help speed up your planning (as I do most days for work.)
However, what IO540 seems to fail to appreciate (again) is the need for the PPL training syllabus to cater for the lowest common dominator ie those who don't have access to a PC! Or, indeed, those who don't have access to a GPS.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, what IO540 seems to fail to appreciate (again) is the need for the PPL training syllabus to cater for the lowest common dominator
Why should PPL training cater for the lowest common denominator?
Like it or not, we already have to accept - in many walks of life - that catering for the lowest common denominator is simply not possible.
Let's say you need an IQ of 100 to pass the exams and get a PPL.
What is the lowest common denominator in IQ? 30? You might have to go to some medical lab to find one, and (as per the old joke) he would probably be preserved in a jamjar, but objectively why doesn't the PPL syllabus cater for that one?
Much time - many hours - is wasted teaching people how to use the circular slide rule. I know for a fact that most of them never develop an understanding of how it actually works; they just go through the motions. Particularly when using it for multiplication and division; 99% of people never used a slide rule for real (calculators came in c. 1970 and nobody used a slide rule for calculation after that; I used one at school in the late 1960s but that was in the former Soviet Bloc) and they never realise that the thing is no more than a multiplication/division device which happens to have marks in common places like 2.2 and 3.78... All that time wasted which could be put to better use.
Still, it depends on your objective. The current objective in PPL training is to take people through the prescribed syllabus, no more. And for as long as the punter continues to pay you continue to feed him. If he's got to 100hrs (i.e. over £10,000) and hasn't gone solo yet you rub your hands in glee and off you go for another flight. It's like a nursing home, keeping residents just alive by feeding them strawberry sandwiches. There is no measure of performance. A better system would be one where there is an objective to teach pilots to fly usefully.
Anyway, this discussion is pointless because anytime anybody suggests modernisation, a dozen jump in saying they don't want it.
Anybody who can learn the slide rule would be up with Navbox in a fraction of the time, and every school needs a PC anyway to get weather, notams, etc. A pilot needs a PC somewhere, how can he get notams otherwise? Does he phone up NATS every time? Yeah, right, as they say...
In fact every airfield should have public internet access for this purpose; it's very much of a double standard to have notams and weather on the internet and not mandate this. If I was in the CAA I would mandate every school/club to have internet access for all pilots, not only based but also visiting.
Times have changed, in the last few years, but many people have not noticed.
Why should PPL training cater for the lowest common denominator?
Like it or not, we already have to accept - in many walks of life - that catering for the lowest common denominator is simply not possible.
Let's say you need an IQ of 100 to pass the exams and get a PPL.
What is the lowest common denominator in IQ? 30? You might have to go to some medical lab to find one, and (as per the old joke) he would probably be preserved in a jamjar, but objectively why doesn't the PPL syllabus cater for that one?
Much time - many hours - is wasted teaching people how to use the circular slide rule. I know for a fact that most of them never develop an understanding of how it actually works; they just go through the motions. Particularly when using it for multiplication and division; 99% of people never used a slide rule for real (calculators came in c. 1970 and nobody used a slide rule for calculation after that; I used one at school in the late 1960s but that was in the former Soviet Bloc) and they never realise that the thing is no more than a multiplication/division device which happens to have marks in common places like 2.2 and 3.78... All that time wasted which could be put to better use.
Still, it depends on your objective. The current objective in PPL training is to take people through the prescribed syllabus, no more. And for as long as the punter continues to pay you continue to feed him. If he's got to 100hrs (i.e. over £10,000) and hasn't gone solo yet you rub your hands in glee and off you go for another flight. It's like a nursing home, keeping residents just alive by feeding them strawberry sandwiches. There is no measure of performance. A better system would be one where there is an objective to teach pilots to fly usefully.
Anyway, this discussion is pointless because anytime anybody suggests modernisation, a dozen jump in saying they don't want it.
Anybody who can learn the slide rule would be up with Navbox in a fraction of the time, and every school needs a PC anyway to get weather, notams, etc. A pilot needs a PC somewhere, how can he get notams otherwise? Does he phone up NATS every time? Yeah, right, as they say...
In fact every airfield should have public internet access for this purpose; it's very much of a double standard to have notams and weather on the internet and not mandate this. If I was in the CAA I would mandate every school/club to have internet access for all pilots, not only based but also visiting.
Times have changed, in the last few years, but many people have not noticed.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 537
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
99% of people never used a slide rule for real
Fond memories of trading mine in at Smiths in the mid 70's when they had an offer on the new Sinclair Scientific kit. Not only built it myself, but had to use reverse polish notation to get the answers out of it too!
I never had a problem with the calculator side of the wizz wheel but took a little while to get the hang of taking the drift back off on the wind arm. Once I started flying for real it made sense. Even BA's old flight planning system failed to take into account the drift angle, so a 150 knot (jetstream) crosswind would still show the same TAS/GS because it failed to allow for the (now) head/tail component with the a/c laying off the drift!
Fond memories of trading mine in at Smiths in the mid 70's when they had an offer on the new Sinclair Scientific kit. Not only built it myself, but had to use reverse polish notation to get the answers out of it too!
I never had a problem with the calculator side of the wizz wheel but took a little while to get the hang of taking the drift back off on the wind arm. Once I started flying for real it made sense. Even BA's old flight planning system failed to take into account the drift angle, so a 150 knot (jetstream) crosswind would still show the same TAS/GS because it failed to allow for the (now) head/tail component with the a/c laying off the drift!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with the whizzwheel?
I had never even seen a slide rule before I got introduced to the Flite Computer, so I was certainly (like everyone else!) used to using calculators...
Now, after minimum training, I find it to be faster and much less error-prone to use the whizzwheel than a calculator.
At least that is one thing they have got right in the current PPL syllabus!
I had never even seen a slide rule before I got introduced to the Flite Computer, so I was certainly (like everyone else!) used to using calculators...
Now, after minimum training, I find it to be faster and much less error-prone to use the whizzwheel than a calculator.
At least that is one thing they have got right in the current PPL syllabus!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
99% of people never used a slide rule for real
C'mon, not everybody here is only just out of nappies.
There must be plenty who, like me, were taught the use of slide rules as a compulsory part of the O level maths course. And I even had a circular one, so it was instantly obvious to me that the whizz wheel was simply a bog standard circular slide rule with some useful constants on it.
[But, it's still outdated and should be scrapped, of course.]
C'mon, not everybody here is only just out of nappies.
There must be plenty who, like me, were taught the use of slide rules as a compulsory part of the O level maths course. And I even had a circular one, so it was instantly obvious to me that the whizz wheel was simply a bog standard circular slide rule with some useful constants on it.
[But, it's still outdated and should be scrapped, of course.]
IO540,
Once again, you seem to be struggling to see outside of your own tiny, little 'box'.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions already in this forum, not everyone wants to use their PPLs to fly across Europe in a TBwhatever using airways and multiple GPSs. Not everyone surrounds themselves with multiple PCs and internet access.
There are plenty of aircraft which only have the most basic of navigation equipment ie magnetic compass, stopwatch and window. There are plenty of pilots who do their planning using a whizzwheel, a protractor and a chart.
You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.
As such, the PPL syllabus needs to cater for these people as well. So, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to 'lowest common denominator', not the IQ of the student.
Once again, you seem to be struggling to see outside of your own tiny, little 'box'.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions already in this forum, not everyone wants to use their PPLs to fly across Europe in a TBwhatever using airways and multiple GPSs. Not everyone surrounds themselves with multiple PCs and internet access.
There are plenty of aircraft which only have the most basic of navigation equipment ie magnetic compass, stopwatch and window. There are plenty of pilots who do their planning using a whizzwheel, a protractor and a chart.
You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.
As such, the PPL syllabus needs to cater for these people as well. So, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to 'lowest common denominator', not the IQ of the student.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's always rewarding to drop a cat among the pigeons here
Btw even if flying a rag & tube type, you still need a PC with internet to get notams if you are going somewhere. OK, I know a lot of pilots never get notams but that's another story.
Btw even if flying a rag & tube type, you still need a PC with internet to get notams if you are going somewhere. OK, I know a lot of pilots never get notams but that's another story.
Oh, now you're just claiming to be a 'wind up merchant', eh? 
How did people get notams in the days before the internet? Morse code from the Home Office? Or maybe just smoke signals?
How did people get notams in the days before the internet? Morse code from the Home Office? Or maybe just smoke signals?
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are plenty of aircraft which only have the most basic of navigation equipment ie magnetic compass, stopwatch and window. There are plenty of pilots who do their planning using a whizzwheel, a protractor and a chart.
You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.
.
You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.
.
What's wrong with the whizzwheel?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to get NOTAMs?
Simple:
Weather: same as above but swap 1 for met office or other weather service
As for lowest common denominator, thats ICAO. Unless you are only talking about a national license, but I don't think we are here. And ICAO lets you fly anywhere on the planet, not only those places with radio, radar and radio-nav and good GPS. Whilst GPS is global, it is under the control of a single government. And yes, whilst they have stated that they wont "turn it off", it is subject to local degredation and blocking (and trials of both are usually NOTAM'd during peace time at least in the UK). When all else fails, all you have left is dead reckoning and celestial navigation (on a clear night anyhow).
If you want something thats good for the UK, have a UK license. If you want something thats good for europe, have a european licence. If you want something thats good worldwide, have an ICAO licence.
And no, I'm not a high hours pilot. I'm a student with 38 hours and 55 minutes total time. I've done 6 hours at night, and 7 hours P1. And for various reasons I havent flown for 2 years. BUt I want a licence that lets me fly anywhere, and I want to be sure I can do so safely and expediently if and when all the extras stop working (I'm going to the US early next year to get the FAA certificate and IR). That doesnt mean i don't want the extras - I do, but I want to be damn sure i can do without them if they stop working (or they just arent there).
Whats the answer? I don't know. Possibly have courses that add value to the PPL, maybe counting towards the AOPA Wings system. A good grounding in the basics and an introduction to more advanced systems during the PPL itself. Remember the 45 hours is minimum flying time - not groundschool. MAybe there are areas of groundschool that should be mandated to ensure all aspects of nav are properly taught and not the current haphazard system we seem to have at the moment where your mileage varies from school to school.
Simple:
- phone NATS (or relevant national service)
- internet from fixed pc
- internet from mobile device
- flying school/club office (possibly via internet), or promolgated from
- airfield flight planning office (which should also have up to data AIP entries)
Weather: same as above but swap 1 for met office or other weather service
As for lowest common denominator, thats ICAO. Unless you are only talking about a national license, but I don't think we are here. And ICAO lets you fly anywhere on the planet, not only those places with radio, radar and radio-nav and good GPS. Whilst GPS is global, it is under the control of a single government. And yes, whilst they have stated that they wont "turn it off", it is subject to local degredation and blocking (and trials of both are usually NOTAM'd during peace time at least in the UK). When all else fails, all you have left is dead reckoning and celestial navigation (on a clear night anyhow).
If you want something thats good for the UK, have a UK license. If you want something thats good for europe, have a european licence. If you want something thats good worldwide, have an ICAO licence.
And no, I'm not a high hours pilot. I'm a student with 38 hours and 55 minutes total time. I've done 6 hours at night, and 7 hours P1. And for various reasons I havent flown for 2 years. BUt I want a licence that lets me fly anywhere, and I want to be sure I can do so safely and expediently if and when all the extras stop working (I'm going to the US early next year to get the FAA certificate and IR). That doesnt mean i don't want the extras - I do, but I want to be damn sure i can do without them if they stop working (or they just arent there).
Whats the answer? I don't know. Possibly have courses that add value to the PPL, maybe counting towards the AOPA Wings system. A good grounding in the basics and an introduction to more advanced systems during the PPL itself. Remember the 45 hours is minimum flying time - not groundschool. MAybe there are areas of groundschool that should be mandated to ensure all aspects of nav are properly taught and not the current haphazard system we seem to have at the moment where your mileage varies from school to school.
The Original Whirly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
I object to that kind of insulting statement!!!! How the hell would you know? Every single career instructor I know took a cut in pay in order to do something he/she loves. We try and teach people to fly and navigate - in all ways uisng all means and techniques. That means that we try to teach them the traditional ways of navigating plus all the newer ones, pointing them in the right direction to learn it themselves when they can since many of them can't afford any extra hours, unlike you. This means we show them the traditional nav, and point out all the other options available so that they can learn by themselves. Unlike you, I and my students can use a whizzwheel to work out a route in a few minutes, fly using a basic compass even in turbulence, find out way with radio navaids, AND use a GPS. I make sure my students have a CHOICE!!! Or, like me, that they adopt a belt and braces approach. Something which your way of doing things wouldn't do, since you'd insist on everyone doing it Your Way.
Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff, and probably never were. That's the only reason I can now see for your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do.
Still, it depends on your objective. The current objective in PPL training is to take people through the prescribed syllabus, no more. And for as long as the punter continues to pay you continue to feed him. If he's got to 100hrs (i.e. over £10,000) and hasn't gone solo yet you rub your hands in glee and off you go for another flight. It's like a nursing home, keeping residents just alive by feeding them strawberry sandwiches. There is no measure of performance. A better system would be one where there is an objective to teach pilots to fly usefully.
Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff, and probably never were. That's the only reason I can now see for your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WB
How the hell would you know?
By looking around
Every single career instructor I know took a cut in pay in order to do something he/she loves.
Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of instructors took the pay cut because hanging around a flying school, getting paid peanuts, is the only way they can get their 1500hrs or whatever towards the frozen ATPL.
Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff,
You are absolutely right, and the same applies to most pilots (not your students, perhaps). I believe in using the most reliable and most accurate methods, consistent with very low cockpit workload.
Actually I can do DR and had no probs in my PPL, but it's awfully hard work and it's easy to get lost with it.
your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do
When did I say anybody should fly the way I do?
Calm down. You asked for opinions and you got some you didn't like.
EvilKitty
In theory you are right about #1 but there are two problems with this: (a) nobody is going to want to read a long briefing to you on the phone (in fact (IME) NATS tend to ask for a fax # to which they can immediately fax the whole briefing) and (b) if every pilot did that, the system would immediately collapse. Nowadays, the system does fully rely on the internet.
#5 is a bit of a problem. Many longer term pilots haven't been members of a club for ages and while sometimes one can use the facilities of some club, this isn't generally available. Also, while a club/school should have the local FIR briefing printed out and pinned on the wall (as was the case when I was doing my PPL) if you want a narror route briefing (essential for any longer flight) you are back to internet access... And finally, at many airports around Europe, there is simply no briefing facility available.
I agree that add-on modules is a great idea, but I recall this has been tried and there was no take-up. Most likely, few pilots will bother to do extra training unless they get new privileges, and what would those be? The IMCR and Night are the only two really, and the IMCR is a lot of extra work. If you can think up some tangible privileges, I am sure people would go for it.
It's different in say gliding, where (AIUI) there are no new legal privileges to be gained anyway, so it's all about self improvement within a rather tightly knit club atmosphere from which there is no escape even if one wanted to. There, a system of grading works well. But in normal fixed wing GA, there are too many lone operators who think they already know what they need to know (sometimes they do, sometimes not) and they won't move unless they get something tangible in return.
How the hell would you know?
By looking around
Every single career instructor I know took a cut in pay in order to do something he/she loves.
Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of instructors took the pay cut because hanging around a flying school, getting paid peanuts, is the only way they can get their 1500hrs or whatever towards the frozen ATPL.
Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff,
You are absolutely right, and the same applies to most pilots (not your students, perhaps). I believe in using the most reliable and most accurate methods, consistent with very low cockpit workload.
Actually I can do DR and had no probs in my PPL, but it's awfully hard work and it's easy to get lost with it.
your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do
When did I say anybody should fly the way I do?
Calm down. You asked for opinions and you got some you didn't like.
EvilKitty
In theory you are right about #1 but there are two problems with this: (a) nobody is going to want to read a long briefing to you on the phone (in fact (IME) NATS tend to ask for a fax # to which they can immediately fax the whole briefing) and (b) if every pilot did that, the system would immediately collapse. Nowadays, the system does fully rely on the internet.
#5 is a bit of a problem. Many longer term pilots haven't been members of a club for ages and while sometimes one can use the facilities of some club, this isn't generally available. Also, while a club/school should have the local FIR briefing printed out and pinned on the wall (as was the case when I was doing my PPL) if you want a narror route briefing (essential for any longer flight) you are back to internet access... And finally, at many airports around Europe, there is simply no briefing facility available.
I agree that add-on modules is a great idea, but I recall this has been tried and there was no take-up. Most likely, few pilots will bother to do extra training unless they get new privileges, and what would those be? The IMCR and Night are the only two really, and the IMCR is a lot of extra work. If you can think up some tangible privileges, I am sure people would go for it.
It's different in say gliding, where (AIUI) there are no new legal privileges to be gained anyway, so it's all about self improvement within a rather tightly knit club atmosphere from which there is no escape even if one wanted to. There, a system of grading works well. But in normal fixed wing GA, there are too many lone operators who think they already know what they need to know (sometimes they do, sometimes not) and they won't move unless they get something tangible in return.