How would YOU teach PPL nav?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With IO540's position, one has to remember some very important things-
They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.
If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.
If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance.
Now look at he average PPL with or without GPS. Who is going to notice for them that they are unknowingly about to leave Class G airspace due to an error and who is going to steer them in the right direction if they rely on GPS and it fails?
They are two different operations entirely and it is like comparing how much BA pilots are aware of the variation where they are to the PPL below the airway at the same place ploughing on with at best a FIS from somewhere.
People who can not navigate should get IR's to fly the airways always and an oxygen system so that one never has to drop out of the base on long flights and then they don't have to worry because if they can't find their way there will always be ATC to help.
They are the ones who could be described as the lowest common denominator - the strugglers, those that simply will never more than plodders. Should they be chopped at the Nav stage?
That is the point - unless one operates a training system that weeds out those below a certain standard at various stages one will have no choice but to cope with the person with 500 hours and who can't navigate without a GPS.
Regards,
DFC
They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.
If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.
If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance.
Now look at he average PPL with or without GPS. Who is going to notice for them that they are unknowingly about to leave Class G airspace due to an error and who is going to steer them in the right direction if they rely on GPS and it fails?
They are two different operations entirely and it is like comparing how much BA pilots are aware of the variation where they are to the PPL below the airway at the same place ploughing on with at best a FIS from somewhere.
People who can not navigate should get IR's to fly the airways always and an oxygen system so that one never has to drop out of the base on long flights and then they don't have to worry because if they can't find their way there will always be ATC to help.
They are the ones who could be described as the lowest common denominator - the strugglers, those that simply will never more than plodders. Should they be chopped at the Nav stage?
That is the point - unless one operates a training system that weeds out those below a certain standard at various stages one will have no choice but to cope with the person with 500 hours and who can't navigate without a GPS.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, I normally ignore your posts but in this case I will make an exception.
With IO540's position, one has to remember some very important things-
They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.
If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.
If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance
As you no longer fly aeroplanes, you don't know what "the Navbox" is, clearly. It's not a "box", it's a flight planning program. And it doesn't (usefully) support airways so is not useful for airways flights. One normally does airways flight planning with Flitestar or, possibly, with Jeppview 3.
And Navbox doesn't put out any "weird headings". It has a database of waypoints, navaids, airports, etc and you draw your route and it generates a wind corrected plog. It is used for VFR, and is used in conjunction with a printed chart for controlled airspace and terrain reference reasons. It covers Europe, as far as Crete, where I have incidentally been VFR. Unlike most VFR charts, it contains airways intersections which makes it much quicker to plan VFR flights because one is rarely short of a database waypoint where needed. I still use it for UK VFR and haven't had to make up a user waypoint for ages.
Navbox is updated monthly from any changes in the national AIPs and, on the scale of flying costs, costs almost nothing.
I am merely advocating the use of a modern method to generate a plog - something which is error free and would enable the slide rule to be discarded and the time saved spent on better things.
I taught my 11 year old to use Navbox in about 5 minutes.
If the "lowest common denominator" is to be a pilot not capable of interacting with any technology, then we better urgently find ways to keep all the decrepit old flying school junk flying for ever, because 10 years from now much of it will be scrapped and will be replaced with stuff with a modern instrument panel which the "lowest common denominator" will have to interact with whether he likes it or not.
There is only one way anything in GA will truly change, and that will be when the old geezers in regulation start drawing their pensions. Maybe that won't be so good though because they will be joining their old mates on pprune
With IO540's position, one has to remember some very important things-
They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.
If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.
If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance
As you no longer fly aeroplanes, you don't know what "the Navbox" is, clearly. It's not a "box", it's a flight planning program. And it doesn't (usefully) support airways so is not useful for airways flights. One normally does airways flight planning with Flitestar or, possibly, with Jeppview 3.
And Navbox doesn't put out any "weird headings". It has a database of waypoints, navaids, airports, etc and you draw your route and it generates a wind corrected plog. It is used for VFR, and is used in conjunction with a printed chart for controlled airspace and terrain reference reasons. It covers Europe, as far as Crete, where I have incidentally been VFR. Unlike most VFR charts, it contains airways intersections which makes it much quicker to plan VFR flights because one is rarely short of a database waypoint where needed. I still use it for UK VFR and haven't had to make up a user waypoint for ages.
Navbox is updated monthly from any changes in the national AIPs and, on the scale of flying costs, costs almost nothing.
I am merely advocating the use of a modern method to generate a plog - something which is error free and would enable the slide rule to be discarded and the time saved spent on better things.
I taught my 11 year old to use Navbox in about 5 minutes.
If the "lowest common denominator" is to be a pilot not capable of interacting with any technology, then we better urgently find ways to keep all the decrepit old flying school junk flying for ever, because 10 years from now much of it will be scrapped and will be replaced with stuff with a modern instrument panel which the "lowest common denominator" will have to interact with whether he likes it or not.
There is only one way anything in GA will truly change, and that will be when the old geezers in regulation start drawing their pensions. Maybe that won't be so good though because they will be joining their old mates on pprune
IO540, you may well be 'considerably richer than yow', but your continual bleating about basic navigation techniques and how your gucci little aeroplane is filled with whizzy GPS systems is wearing a little thin...
Of course new technology has its place. But many flying clubs are hanging on by a thin financial thread. Even the ludicrous FM-immunity nonsense strained the finances of many - do you really imagine that insisting that all your electric toys be fitted to every trainign aeroplane is in any way reasonable?
All driving school cars do NOT have 'COMAND' navigation systems fitted; likewise every C152 will never be required to have GPS.
I've provided Internet met and AIS information sysems at the Club where I teach - but few students want to sit in front of the PC to plan. Instead they just use the printed information and sit down with a UK 1/2 mill. It takes no time at all to measure track/distance and apply the wind - a ruler is quicker than mousing in waypoints or typing them for a basic triangular navex. But not UK-Crete, of course! I think that using an electronic nav computer is fine - but I find the whizz wheel a bit quicker than pressing buttons for a 3-leg trip. Chaq'un a son gout though. The distance/speed readout on the back is an excellent example of how an analogue computer still has some advantages over digital methods.
You are very welcome to having fun playing airliners, but pilots must learn basic navigation - using some recent tools to assist that process will help, but not replace, the basics.
All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them. That I find astonishing - used correctly the GPS is a superb tool and often a lot more accurate for basic day VFR navigation flying than clunky old VOR/VOR or VOR/DME at low levels on the boundaries of their DOC....
Of course new technology has its place. But many flying clubs are hanging on by a thin financial thread. Even the ludicrous FM-immunity nonsense strained the finances of many - do you really imagine that insisting that all your electric toys be fitted to every trainign aeroplane is in any way reasonable?
All driving school cars do NOT have 'COMAND' navigation systems fitted; likewise every C152 will never be required to have GPS.
I've provided Internet met and AIS information sysems at the Club where I teach - but few students want to sit in front of the PC to plan. Instead they just use the printed information and sit down with a UK 1/2 mill. It takes no time at all to measure track/distance and apply the wind - a ruler is quicker than mousing in waypoints or typing them for a basic triangular navex. But not UK-Crete, of course! I think that using an electronic nav computer is fine - but I find the whizz wheel a bit quicker than pressing buttons for a 3-leg trip. Chaq'un a son gout though. The distance/speed readout on the back is an excellent example of how an analogue computer still has some advantages over digital methods.
You are very welcome to having fun playing airliners, but pilots must learn basic navigation - using some recent tools to assist that process will help, but not replace, the basics.
All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them. That I find astonishing - used correctly the GPS is a superb tool and often a lot more accurate for basic day VFR navigation flying than clunky old VOR/VOR or VOR/DME at low levels on the boundaries of their DOC....
The Original Whirly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I taught my 11 year old to use Navbox in about 5 minutes.
You can learn to use Navbox in 5 minutes - if you know it exists and what it is.
GPS doesn't take long to learn to use. You can stick with the moving map and "Go To" function until you need something else; then you simply look up what else you need.
Ditto, AFAIK, for most other modern technology related to PPL type flying.
Therefore, do we need to change the syllabus, so far as flying content goes, at all? We simply teach using DR, map and compass, navaids as usual. Then we have a bit of extra briefing, which doesn't add extra time or cost, explaining all the other ways of navigating - what they are, what they do, where to buy them, the advantages and disadvantages. Students don't exactly need an instructor sitting next to them in order to learn to follow a line on a GPS!
PPLs then have a choice...and as you might have gathered CHOICE is a word I like. They can fly old aircraft with minimal instrumentation, and navigate the old way. Or they can use modern technology. Or they can do both...belt and braces and all that.
I try to do this anyway, and I think most CAREER instructors do - I don't know about some of the hour builders. It seems to make most sense.
In which case, do we even have a problem?
BTW, IO540, starting a thread on PPRuNe doesn't mean that one is barred from commenting on it eight pages on.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them
That, Beagle, is because every PPL I have ever known feels guilty as hell at the mere mention of the 3-letter word when in proximity to an instructor
My experience is that the vast majority of PPLs would chuck in DR the moment they had the choice. A lot of them already have, and they aren't ranting on about it on pprune, but many can't due to poor equipment availability and not having the money to fly much let alone spend £1000 on a decent GPS. Many (probably more than 50%) also believe GPS is illegal, or illegal as "primary nav" - the result of all the disinformation that's been going around.
As regards changing the syllabus, I am not an instructor so I don't know what exactly is written down. It's a matter of how far one could push it and still meet the requirements. I believe the slide rule is absolutely prescribed so one can't play with that one.
Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject now, and it's the same old crowd on here every time it comes up.
That, Beagle, is because every PPL I have ever known feels guilty as hell at the mere mention of the 3-letter word when in proximity to an instructor
My experience is that the vast majority of PPLs would chuck in DR the moment they had the choice. A lot of them already have, and they aren't ranting on about it on pprune, but many can't due to poor equipment availability and not having the money to fly much let alone spend £1000 on a decent GPS. Many (probably more than 50%) also believe GPS is illegal, or illegal as "primary nav" - the result of all the disinformation that's been going around.
As regards changing the syllabus, I am not an instructor so I don't know what exactly is written down. It's a matter of how far one could push it and still meet the requirements. I believe the slide rule is absolutely prescribed so one can't play with that one.
Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject now, and it's the same old crowd on here every time it comes up.
For someone who is so vocal, your range of experience seems to be so limited. Even when people such as High Wing Drifter tell you on this very thread about the traditional methods that they enjoy using, you still choose to ignore them.
Where on earth does that '50%' come from? The '89.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot' school?
But I bet it's not the last time you mention it...
But I bet it's not the last time you mention it...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them.
That will be because they have the worst user interface ever invented and are a right b****r to use. You can spend an hour or so re-reading the manual before flight, write down the set of button presses you need to achieve something, and you still can't get it to do anything useful.
And, if you are going to insist on spending minutes and minutes faffing around trying to programme the b****y thing you want to do this with the engine off, don't you, you don't want to be doing it at £2.50/minute. So by the time you've started the engine and remembered you haven't sorted out the GPS yet it's too late, so you don't even bother to turn it on.
Further, having drawn the line on the map and worked out the VORs and NDBs you're going to use, which you have to do anyway in case the GPS fails, you've got more than enough navigation information. Why spend extra eyes-in time on a third navigation system that you don't actually need? Wouldn't your eyes be better occupied looking out?
(If you own your own aircraft of course you have two advantages - one is that you've got a better chance of spending enough time with one particular GPS box to learn how to use it, as compared to a different box fitted to each of the school's fleet, and the other is that you can choose to keep the database up to date, which flying schools tend not always to do. So, unlike in a flying school aircraft, when your own GPS tells you you're going to miss that controlled airspace or danger area there's a fair chance of it telling the truth - in a flying school aircraft without an up to date database you always have to cross-check on the map.)
That will be because they have the worst user interface ever invented and are a right b****r to use. You can spend an hour or so re-reading the manual before flight, write down the set of button presses you need to achieve something, and you still can't get it to do anything useful.
And, if you are going to insist on spending minutes and minutes faffing around trying to programme the b****y thing you want to do this with the engine off, don't you, you don't want to be doing it at £2.50/minute. So by the time you've started the engine and remembered you haven't sorted out the GPS yet it's too late, so you don't even bother to turn it on.
Further, having drawn the line on the map and worked out the VORs and NDBs you're going to use, which you have to do anyway in case the GPS fails, you've got more than enough navigation information. Why spend extra eyes-in time on a third navigation system that you don't actually need? Wouldn't your eyes be better occupied looking out?
(If you own your own aircraft of course you have two advantages - one is that you've got a better chance of spending enough time with one particular GPS box to learn how to use it, as compared to a different box fitted to each of the school's fleet, and the other is that you can choose to keep the database up to date, which flying schools tend not always to do. So, unlike in a flying school aircraft, when your own GPS tells you you're going to miss that controlled airspace or danger area there's a fair chance of it telling the truth - in a flying school aircraft without an up to date database you always have to cross-check on the map.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a very strange thread.
Whirly asks:
And 8 pages, and 150+ posts later says:
I find it bizarre that you can have so many good contributions (and granted some less good ones) and distill absolutely nothing form then.
Whirly - you should have been a politician - not a flying instructor.
Whirly also says:
I am not sure it really is a word you like - or many others for that matter.
Choice means having the ability to chose between one or more alternatives. Implied is also the ability to chose freely.
Therefore, whether you are pro or anti GPS lobby choice means giving the student the opportunity to make an informed choice between each. If his choice is to be informed then he needs to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. For that reason, as I said before, the syllabus should include an introduction to the use of GPS.
IMO it shows a complete lack of understanding to suggest that the use of GPS does not need to be taught for two reasons. Firstly, if the student does not experience different systems of navigation he cannot make that choice that you hold so dear. (And sadly it is no good relying on mentoring post PPL because in a great many cases it does not happen). Secondly, it really isnt as simple as reading the manuals - it should be obvious from this thread and others that there is a great deal to teaching students how to use GPS systems correctly for navigation.
The debate has become polarised into the usual pro anti GPS camps. It is hugely disappointing that each camp cannot accommodate the other with each far more concerned with trying to prove theirs is the better camp.
The other component of navigation is planning. There has been relatively little discussion about how the syllabus teaches students to acquire the information they need to plan a safe flight. When I did my PPL, this aspect of navigation was hopeless. I had no idea where to find most of what I needed, other than the club notice board, which didn’t prove much help when I eventually started flying to more far flung destinations!
Come on, get off your hobby horses, listen to each other views and come up with some positive ways in which the syllabus could be improved for Whirly.
That is what you wanted Whirly - wasn’t it
Whirly asks:
What would you include/take out/put in?
In which case, do we even have a problem?
Whirly - you should have been a politician - not a flying instructor.
Whirly also says:
PPLs then have a choice...and as you might have gathered CHOICE is a word I like.
Choice means having the ability to chose between one or more alternatives. Implied is also the ability to chose freely.
Therefore, whether you are pro or anti GPS lobby choice means giving the student the opportunity to make an informed choice between each. If his choice is to be informed then he needs to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. For that reason, as I said before, the syllabus should include an introduction to the use of GPS.
IMO it shows a complete lack of understanding to suggest that the use of GPS does not need to be taught for two reasons. Firstly, if the student does not experience different systems of navigation he cannot make that choice that you hold so dear. (And sadly it is no good relying on mentoring post PPL because in a great many cases it does not happen). Secondly, it really isnt as simple as reading the manuals - it should be obvious from this thread and others that there is a great deal to teaching students how to use GPS systems correctly for navigation.
The debate has become polarised into the usual pro anti GPS camps. It is hugely disappointing that each camp cannot accommodate the other with each far more concerned with trying to prove theirs is the better camp.
The other component of navigation is planning. There has been relatively little discussion about how the syllabus teaches students to acquire the information they need to plan a safe flight. When I did my PPL, this aspect of navigation was hopeless. I had no idea where to find most of what I needed, other than the club notice board, which didn’t prove much help when I eventually started flying to more far flung destinations!
Come on, get off your hobby horses, listen to each other views and come up with some positive ways in which the syllabus could be improved for Whirly.
That is what you wanted Whirly - wasn’t it
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree Fuji, as I mentioned above (somewhere) sufficient planning has the single biggest affect on the outcome of a flight. It doesn't seem to be given the weight it should.
On a side note, I'm doing an instructor course at the moment and am learning that there are ways that I can make my life easier. The accent is on the broad view. Planning is the broad view, the big picture which is what situational awareness is too. Technique minutia (DR or GPS) are more about the narrow view. From the discussion we've had during the course so far (it is early days!), inappropriate reliance on the narrow view seems to be the thing that lands people in hock.
On a side note, I'm doing an instructor course at the moment and am learning that there are ways that I can make my life easier. The accent is on the broad view. Planning is the broad view, the big picture which is what situational awareness is too. Technique minutia (DR or GPS) are more about the narrow view. From the discussion we've had during the course so far (it is early days!), inappropriate reliance on the narrow view seems to be the thing that lands people in hock.
Our Garmins are either GPS150 or GNC250, the GPS elements of which are very similar. They even have common user waypoints, whichare listed in the Club FOB.....
Moreover, we even ask that people don't fiddle with the 'standard' set up, just leave it with our aerodrome as the reference, so that brg/rng from home is always available, plus DTK, ETA, GS and XTK on the CDI. That way, a positive cross-check against ruler-measured track, plus computed GS and ETA is available.
But the number of times I've found TRK and DTK left displayed - and met people who think that if DTK = TRK, then they must be on track.... Clearly they've never heard of parallel lines!
However, much of the problem is indeed that many FIs don't understand the GPS!
Moreover, we even ask that people don't fiddle with the 'standard' set up, just leave it with our aerodrome as the reference, so that brg/rng from home is always available, plus DTK, ETA, GS and XTK on the CDI. That way, a positive cross-check against ruler-measured track, plus computed GS and ETA is available.
But the number of times I've found TRK and DTK left displayed - and met people who think that if DTK = TRK, then they must be on track.... Clearly they've never heard of parallel lines!
However, much of the problem is indeed that many FIs don't understand the GPS!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Droopystop, I think the quarter mill chart is a better chart for PPL training, but I only came across it when I converted from fixed wing to rotary. The detail means its much easier to determine your position esp in areas where on the half mill you just have a few yellow dots and there are enough features to help you determine where the controlled airspace is on the ground. At 100kts and the sort of navex involved in PPL training, the scale doesnt cause any cockpit managment problems.
Now I've been trained in both fw and rotary, I think there are other rotary nav practices - use of back stops and track crawling - which would help with people learning nav in fixed wing.
Having sat the ATPL exams and witnessed first hand how the CAA is educating future commercial pilots on GPS, I would not hold my breath waiting for GPS navigation to enter the PPL syllabus. But isn't it a bit of a red herring........post PPL I bought a hand held, read the manual and used it, then I rented planes with GPS and asked an instructor to demo it to me. Just how hard is it to do this?
W
(Before I get abused for being a neanderthal, post PPL(A) I went IMC, MEP, twin group share, Euro touring with GPSs and auto pilot and will leave my quarter mill at home next time I fly to the south of France).
Now I've been trained in both fw and rotary, I think there are other rotary nav practices - use of back stops and track crawling - which would help with people learning nav in fixed wing.
Having sat the ATPL exams and witnessed first hand how the CAA is educating future commercial pilots on GPS, I would not hold my breath waiting for GPS navigation to enter the PPL syllabus. But isn't it a bit of a red herring........post PPL I bought a hand held, read the manual and used it, then I rented planes with GPS and asked an instructor to demo it to me. Just how hard is it to do this?
W
(Before I get abused for being a neanderthal, post PPL(A) I went IMC, MEP, twin group share, Euro touring with GPSs and auto pilot and will leave my quarter mill at home next time I fly to the south of France).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, following on from my earlier remarks here are my thoughts.
I should say at the outset it is a very long time since I did my PPL, and maybe there have been huge changes since then - if so please forgive me.
What’s in the name? Well the title sets the scene and I think the navigation module should be re-branded “flight planning and navigation”.
I think the way in which the theoretical components integrate with the practical components should be reviewed. I recall that AICs and NOTAMS et al were covered in air law, but there was very little integration between air law and the flying I did with my instructors. As a result their practical inclusion in flight planning largely passed me by. I had no idea where I could obtain this information (other than the club notice board) and nor what information I really need to know before embarking on a flight.
Navigating a route starts with checking the NOTAMS, reviewing the forecasts, and considering whether a flight plan might be required. It also comprises formulating an understanding of the route to be followed. This could include the impact of controlled airspace, gliding sites, terrain that may have some effect on the flight, as well as potential diversions. On a VFR flight an important element are the options that might be available when things go wrong - it could be with the weather or with the aircraft. Many PPLs I have flown with have little idea about their options en route, their focus is entirely on getting from point A to point B. Tell them before you go over a ridge line that there will probably be a few bumps and they are amazed, ask them where they are going to go if the engine quits over one of those huge forests in France or over some of the less hospitable terrain in the UK and they have no idea. Had they considered these elements in their route planning they might have considered a very small diversion to avoid these and other problems but it never crossed their minds. In short I would have liked to have spent more time with my instructors understanding what was practically involved in the planning phase of a route I intended to navigate. (Interestingly, exactly the same issues arise with IR and IMCRs, plenty of sound theory, but not much concern with the practical issues of actually flying an airways route sector).
The planning all pulls together with the cross country exercises. Diversions become a relevant tool to solve a potential problem that might have arisen rather than the instructor using the same diversion on the same cross country navex which he flies every time with every student. The instructor has ample opportunity to set off on a route sector in weather which is a mite marginal for the new PPL, point out the cloud base is descending somewhere along the route, even if it isnt by much, and put into practice a diversion. The instructor is equipped to demonstrate the use of a moving map GPS perhaps as part and parcel of the work required on radio navigation because after all each is surely as relevant an alternative navigational tool. The instructor now has an opportunity to fail the GPS or the VOR so the student has an appreciation that whatever kit is involved it might stop working. There is also an opportunity to look at how a practice call might be made to D and D or how a RIS service might be used to enable the student to get himself “out of trouble”.
In short these are all practical skills that come together to comprise more than blindly navigating a route from A to B and which comprise the foundations of airmanship.
Whirly if I were an instructor and wanted to know the answer to the question you pose I probably wouldn’t ask here.
Your audience are those PPLs who have just gone through the system. No one ever bothers to ask them. (And I appreciate there are a few on here). Once they have passed there PPL they are cast to the school rental market (some good, some less so).
If I were really interested I would prepare a questionnaire for every one of my students and “insist” they returned this to me a year later. I ask my school to do the same thing for every student that passed through. I would want to know where they felt the syllabus had been weak a year on. I would want to know if they were using GPS units, and if so what problems they had encountered and if not, why not. I would want to know how their flying aspirations had changed form starting their PPL to a point a year on because one of the reasons so many PPLs give up just might be because they finish their PPL without the confidence to go anywhere. If that is true it is partly because the navigational element of the syllabus has failed.
I finish with recounting a couple of pilots I met very recently. They had been flying for a couple of years. They didn’t stray too far from home but clearly very much enjoyed their flying. The one said to me I have always wanted to go to the West country - after all it is not too far away. So why don’t you said I - it’s a great trip. Ah well said the other there is that area of airspace to the west of Bournemouth - it looks very complicated and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of transiting it - does there? It has always put us off.
They had no idea how to plan and navigate a route to the west country - hardly France or even Europe, not a drop of sea involved - not even Scotland or Wales - just a bit of good old England.
I should say at the outset it is a very long time since I did my PPL, and maybe there have been huge changes since then - if so please forgive me.
What’s in the name? Well the title sets the scene and I think the navigation module should be re-branded “flight planning and navigation”.
I think the way in which the theoretical components integrate with the practical components should be reviewed. I recall that AICs and NOTAMS et al were covered in air law, but there was very little integration between air law and the flying I did with my instructors. As a result their practical inclusion in flight planning largely passed me by. I had no idea where I could obtain this information (other than the club notice board) and nor what information I really need to know before embarking on a flight.
Navigating a route starts with checking the NOTAMS, reviewing the forecasts, and considering whether a flight plan might be required. It also comprises formulating an understanding of the route to be followed. This could include the impact of controlled airspace, gliding sites, terrain that may have some effect on the flight, as well as potential diversions. On a VFR flight an important element are the options that might be available when things go wrong - it could be with the weather or with the aircraft. Many PPLs I have flown with have little idea about their options en route, their focus is entirely on getting from point A to point B. Tell them before you go over a ridge line that there will probably be a few bumps and they are amazed, ask them where they are going to go if the engine quits over one of those huge forests in France or over some of the less hospitable terrain in the UK and they have no idea. Had they considered these elements in their route planning they might have considered a very small diversion to avoid these and other problems but it never crossed their minds. In short I would have liked to have spent more time with my instructors understanding what was practically involved in the planning phase of a route I intended to navigate. (Interestingly, exactly the same issues arise with IR and IMCRs, plenty of sound theory, but not much concern with the practical issues of actually flying an airways route sector).
The planning all pulls together with the cross country exercises. Diversions become a relevant tool to solve a potential problem that might have arisen rather than the instructor using the same diversion on the same cross country navex which he flies every time with every student. The instructor has ample opportunity to set off on a route sector in weather which is a mite marginal for the new PPL, point out the cloud base is descending somewhere along the route, even if it isnt by much, and put into practice a diversion. The instructor is equipped to demonstrate the use of a moving map GPS perhaps as part and parcel of the work required on radio navigation because after all each is surely as relevant an alternative navigational tool. The instructor now has an opportunity to fail the GPS or the VOR so the student has an appreciation that whatever kit is involved it might stop working. There is also an opportunity to look at how a practice call might be made to D and D or how a RIS service might be used to enable the student to get himself “out of trouble”.
In short these are all practical skills that come together to comprise more than blindly navigating a route from A to B and which comprise the foundations of airmanship.
Whirly if I were an instructor and wanted to know the answer to the question you pose I probably wouldn’t ask here.
Your audience are those PPLs who have just gone through the system. No one ever bothers to ask them. (And I appreciate there are a few on here). Once they have passed there PPL they are cast to the school rental market (some good, some less so).
If I were really interested I would prepare a questionnaire for every one of my students and “insist” they returned this to me a year later. I ask my school to do the same thing for every student that passed through. I would want to know where they felt the syllabus had been weak a year on. I would want to know if they were using GPS units, and if so what problems they had encountered and if not, why not. I would want to know how their flying aspirations had changed form starting their PPL to a point a year on because one of the reasons so many PPLs give up just might be because they finish their PPL without the confidence to go anywhere. If that is true it is partly because the navigational element of the syllabus has failed.
I finish with recounting a couple of pilots I met very recently. They had been flying for a couple of years. They didn’t stray too far from home but clearly very much enjoyed their flying. The one said to me I have always wanted to go to the West country - after all it is not too far away. So why don’t you said I - it’s a great trip. Ah well said the other there is that area of airspace to the west of Bournemouth - it looks very complicated and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of transiting it - does there? It has always put us off.
They had no idea how to plan and navigate a route to the west country - hardly France or even Europe, not a drop of sea involved - not even Scotland or Wales - just a bit of good old England.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
Personally, I think the old adage "a little bit of everything..." is quite a good analogy.
Myself, I enjoy working through the HDG, track, wind and drift triangle on paper, (have a quick method), then using the whizzwheel to see if it comes up with a similar answer. However, I accept that this probably wouldn't work too well in the air! I do like lines on the map, however, because it aids your eyes in looking at where you should be/are going quicker than if you didn't draw one on.
Personally, I put the wind and heading on the map, and other items on a bit of paper.
I also think that Navbox is a superb piece of software, and do not hesitate to use it if I want to, but not always.
Ditto for GPS. However, I learnt my lesson a long time ago about relying on it too much, when I lost the signal perilously close to controlled airspace, and hadn't been concentrating too much on other methods of navigation... A lesson well learned, and one which <hopefully> I won't make again.
Our cessnas are not fitted with GPS, but they do have VOR, ADF and DME, which I see absolutely nothing wrong with using when required.
Talking of GPS, my one BIG failure these days is relying on it too much in my car, but that's another story.
What I'd advocate, is to teach the basics, but not get snowed under with them, and also teach the newer stuff, such as GPS, and flight planning software, such as Navbox.
I think the more methods a person can call on, the better. What works for one person might not work for another, so it's good to have a choice.
It does appear that in aviation sometimes, when weighing up more traditional methods against newer technology, retroverted snobbery is occasionally at work. I'm as guilty as anyone regarding my last statement; What I'd like to be is a brilliant navigator, not needing to rely on anything modern, but getting by, thank you very much, on the good old basics.
BUT I'm not, unfortunately, and am not ashamed to say that sometimes, I need/am grateful for, the helping hand of VOR, ADF, DME and dare I say it, GPS
ariel
Personally, I think the old adage "a little bit of everything..." is quite a good analogy.
Myself, I enjoy working through the HDG, track, wind and drift triangle on paper, (have a quick method), then using the whizzwheel to see if it comes up with a similar answer. However, I accept that this probably wouldn't work too well in the air! I do like lines on the map, however, because it aids your eyes in looking at where you should be/are going quicker than if you didn't draw one on.
Personally, I put the wind and heading on the map, and other items on a bit of paper.
I also think that Navbox is a superb piece of software, and do not hesitate to use it if I want to, but not always.
Ditto for GPS. However, I learnt my lesson a long time ago about relying on it too much, when I lost the signal perilously close to controlled airspace, and hadn't been concentrating too much on other methods of navigation... A lesson well learned, and one which <hopefully> I won't make again.
Our cessnas are not fitted with GPS, but they do have VOR, ADF and DME, which I see absolutely nothing wrong with using when required.
Talking of GPS, my one BIG failure these days is relying on it too much in my car, but that's another story.
What I'd advocate, is to teach the basics, but not get snowed under with them, and also teach the newer stuff, such as GPS, and flight planning software, such as Navbox.
I think the more methods a person can call on, the better. What works for one person might not work for another, so it's good to have a choice.
It does appear that in aviation sometimes, when weighing up more traditional methods against newer technology, retroverted snobbery is occasionally at work. I'm as guilty as anyone regarding my last statement; What I'd like to be is a brilliant navigator, not needing to rely on anything modern, but getting by, thank you very much, on the good old basics.
BUT I'm not, unfortunately, and am not ashamed to say that sometimes, I need/am grateful for, the helping hand of VOR, ADF, DME and dare I say it, GPS
ariel
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They didn’t stray too far from home but clearly very much enjoyed their flying. The one said to me I have always wanted to go to the West country - after all it is not too far away. So why don’t you said I - it’s a great trip. Ah well said the other there is that area of airspace to the west of Bournemouth - it looks very complicated and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of transiting it - does there? It has always put us off.
There are no CTRs due West of Bournemouth....did the pilots mentioned know the difference between a MATZ, ATZ, AIAA, Danger Area etc? Perhaps not....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Thank you for saying that because it has helped to show a very important point;
Many of those that advocate traditional methods for Visual Navigation do not understand navigation at all and also (since none of the GPS users here have picked you up) the GPS users are no better when it comes to GPS navigation.
Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint.
PS - Also ask the DA40 IR initial candidates that fly super accurate NDB procedures (nothing to do with the constant GPS track readout of course)
There is a study in large aircraft circles to see if it would be better to go from magnetic heading as a reference to (as one option) track and ATC would issue track instructions as opposed to heading instructions.
Regards,
DFC
But the number of times I've found TRK and DTK left displayed - and met people who think that if DTK = TRK, then they must be on track.... Clearly they've never heard of parallel lines!
Many of those that advocate traditional methods for Visual Navigation do not understand navigation at all and also (since none of the GPS users here have picked you up) the GPS users are no better when it comes to GPS navigation.
Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint.
PS - Also ask the DA40 IR initial candidates that fly super accurate NDB procedures (nothing to do with the constant GPS track readout of course)
There is a study in large aircraft circles to see if it would be better to go from magnetic heading as a reference to (as one option) track and ATC would issue track instructions as opposed to heading instructions.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint.
Islander 2, quite so!
This is the Garmin convention:
The GPS150 and GNC250 have a limited selection of fields, so we use:
dis - distance to next WPT
dtk - the track from one WPT to another.
gs - the groundspeed which should be about the same as pre-planned
eta - estimated time at the WPT
and CDI set to show cross-track errors.
This is the Garmin convention:
See the excellent product guides for discontinued items such as the GPS150 at: http://www8.garmin.com/support/userM...t=010-00062-00 for fuller details.
The GPS150 and GNC250 have a limited selection of fields, so we use:
dis - distance to next WPT
dtk - the track from one WPT to another.
gs - the groundspeed which should be about the same as pre-planned
eta - estimated time at the WPT
and CDI set to show cross-track errors.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, Beagle, the GPS150 and GNC250 are so utterly ghastly that if I was presented with a plane with one of these in it, I wouldn't even bother switching it on.
The moving map alone on these is marginally better than a tuna sandwich
These are 1980s technology.
If I was going to the hassle of installing a GPS in a plane in a permanent manner, I would put in something with a decent usable map, and the KMD150 is about the baseline there. The Skymap 3C is often panel mounted and is very similar. All of these are way better than the much more expensive Garmin 430, for non-airways usage.
The moving map alone on these is marginally better than a tuna sandwich
These are 1980s technology.
If I was going to the hassle of installing a GPS in a plane in a permanent manner, I would put in something with a decent usable map, and the KMD150 is about the baseline there. The Skymap 3C is often panel mounted and is very similar. All of these are way better than the much more expensive Garmin 430, for non-airways usage.