do you use gps

[IO540]

User interfaces in GPSs are poorly designed.

Like a really horrid VCR, they are OK once you have them sussed.

The basics e.g. simple route entry, tend to be fairly easy to work out, but anything beyond that (e.g. waypoint handling on the missed approach) vary a lot, with some potentially fatal gotchas. But then anybody using an IFR GPS must fully understand it if they use it for the said features.

[LH2]

From a report from someone I know who did the JAA CPL recently, GPS was not used for most or all of it;

Well, I did not use it during my CPL skills test or at any point during my CPL training in the UK (not officially anyway, the instructor had it on to keep an eye on our position respect to controlled airspace--which means a quick glance at the screen and I knew exactly where I was).

On the other hand, when I did my instrument rating in Spain I was trained and examined by pilots who actually fly in commercial operations (from PC12s to B777), and they taught me exactly how to use the GPS (entering FPLs, diversions, fuel metering, etc.) which besides we actually used during our practise sorties. Considering that whenever flying IFR in Europe ATC will consider you LNAV capable and clear you accordingly, it is totally stupid not to ensure students are proficient with the kit.

There were also other invaluable bits of wisdom such as pointing out how you would go on autopilot if you had to deal with an emergency or were otherwise mentally overloaded, etc. All very practical stuff which even those of us with little hair on our chests can do.

Having said that, I do not generally use GPS on VFR pleasure flights, purely because it's more fun doing it the traditional way. Hell, on my last long flight I crossed half of Europe and back on partial panel thanks to a duff suction pump and had a great time doing so. But of course, if I just wanted to get from A to B, or was flying commercially, then no doubt I would make full use of whatever I have. Same if I think there is a good chance of getting in trouble (e.g., flying over lots of water).

use of GPS is not allowed for the main navigation part but is allowed for the diversion exercise (as is radio nav, looking out of the window and I Follow Roads - anything goes!)

Even calling a friend?

[Lister Noble]

I have a £99 Garmin E-trex,it gives me bearing,distance and time to a waypoint,speed over ground and track,probably more stuff if I wanted to find out.
I have several local waypoints programmed in and for my purposes it is all I need as a back up.

The other point,flying locally I could find at least 5 other airfields not counting Norwich within 20 miles without a chart or GPS.
Plus several private strips.
If you were really lost I think you could always ask for a QDM into an ATC airfield.

Last point,I was going flying today but it really is too bl**dy cold here,the L4 has so many draughts that one soon becomes quite perished,it happens quite quickly from being comfortable for say 40 mins and then rapidly having "near hypothermia" when you start to feel cold from the inside and it takes quite a while to warm up when landed.

Never mind,days getting longer and it'll soon be Springtime!

Lister

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As Whirligig mentioned, you are allowed to use the GPS on the diversion leg. You are only allowed to use it in "raw data mode" i.e. showing either Lat and Long or a range and bearing from a waypoint. Moving map displays and GoTo features are not allowed.

Dear God give me the strength to have it in my heart to forgive the idiots who sodomize the minds of the general pilot population with such darwinism thinking as the above.

How any mouth breathing morons ever got to be in a position to teach such rubbish is beyond my comprehension, to restrict pilots from using the most modern navigation aids such as GPS with not only three dimensional extremely accurate situational information but also a pictorial moving map presentation is mind boggling!!!.

I think that as a new years resolution I shall quit reading these aviation discussion forums so as not to become so depressed that I put my head in a gas oven and end it all.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Perhaps the problem more lies in your lack of experience with this kit rather than it not being fit for purpose?

A very substantial part of designing a system to be "fit for purpose" is to ensure that it is usable by its target customer base.

A system which is perfectly fine for someone who uses it for hours every week is not necessarily fine for someone who rents a club aircraft once a month and only wants to programme a route into the GPS once a year. These are two different "purposes" and a piece of kit which is fit for one of them is not de facto fit for the other - that's a separate judgement.

When designing user interfaces the professional makes sure he is very clear whether he is aiming at an all-day-every-day user or an occasional user, and will come up with different designs. Or, perhaps, a device with an optional hand-holding mode.

(Of course, back in the real world, if his management won't listen to him, he might have little choice but to end up with something that's not really best designed for either.)

I suppose it could be that there are GPS units which are well designed for the occasional user, and the club I rent from has simply bought and installed the wrong kit. But I've never read any reviews of anything that claims to be designed for the occasional user - I have however read reports of people who, because the UI is so awful, have only ever managed to learn the "go to" button, and blundered through someone else's airspace in consequence.

[gpn01]

Originally Posted by IO540

No you don't. No such requirement. You are 100% legal with sufficient navigation data (whatever that means) and with a GPS as the only navigation device.

Presume you mean you can use a GPS instead of a map providing the GPS shows all current airspace on it ?

[IO540]

I think that as a new years resolution I shall quit reading these aviation discussion forums so as not to become so depressed that I put my head in a gas oven and end it all

It isn't quite so bad, Chuck. Here in Europe, you pass the checkride, collect the piece of paper, and after that you do things the sensible way Otherwise, I completely agree with you; it's nuts.

Presume you mean you can use a GPS instead of a map providing the GPS shows all current airspace on it ?

Yes, that would meet the regs. Unfortunately, the representation on a GPS moving map (Jeppesen basemap, generally) is insufficient so a printed VFR chart is also required for VFR flight (at least for the planning stage) - unless your moving map is one of the rare types which runs the actual VFR chart.

There is zero history of UK prosecutions in this area, so one can only guess. I suppose that a pilot flying without any nav data could not be prosecuted for it at all (in the UK; the USA would be different, and there are countries where a chart must be carried though none I know about in Europe) because he could claim he had the information in his head. But if he busted airspace, be would look a total d*ck before the Court and would surely get a bigger fine. As regards insurance, he would be covered because insurance does cover negligence.

[steveking]

I've used a 296 since passing nearly 3 years ago and clocked up over 500hrs with it now. Had 2 failures with it both being the antenna coming unstuck. So all in all seems pretty reliable to me.

I think they are fantasic bits of kit. I must admit I can use the 296 to it's full potential, well almost. But even if I couldn't and had never used it before then just leave it on the map page, plenty of info on there to show what's around you and where you are.

[scooter boy]

2000+ hrs on GPS (supplemented by VOR/ILSs/charts/eyeball).
No failures.
No zone infringements.

Nothing comes close in terms of practical aviation through unfamiliar airspace.

SB

[A and C]

The club I rent from!

Well Gurtrude we now see the heart of the problem , No training and little use of the equipment.

When I first fitted the IFR GPS I built a rig to run the unit at home and then took the time to find out how the thing works. Now you can get computor programs to teach you how the unit works.

GPS provides IFR navigation that thirty years ago was only avalble from airliner size INS units costing the other side of $90,000, professional crews would be trained to use these things on a type rating. With kit like this now avalable to GA you would expect to have to do a little trainning to use such a tool.

It would seem to me that Gurtrude should spend a few hours finding out how to use the kit (on a computor trainer provided in the flying club that rents him the aircraft ?) rather than complaning on about how poor it is. I thing we are now back to the "poor workman" bit!

[ShyTorque]

I've found that the supposedly "tried and tested" VOR/DME and ADF sometimes fail on me (I fly a SPIFR aircraft). Sometimes they are under known maintenance or for unknown reasons fail to ident. Some parts of the UK are very poorly served with appropriate beacons. The CAA have announced that their support for NDBs will soon cease. In some cases, if one beacon fails, that's it, no "conventional" cover and (in the absence of GPS) a DR fallback is the only option.

On the other hand, I've flown aircraft equipped with GPS in one form or another since 1991. I think I've only ever had a complete GPS failure once, probably caused by NOTAM'd jamming trials that were taking place in Wales at that time.

My concern is that the "multifunctional" radio/nav equipment switchery in some modern aircraft is so complicated that it can be counterintuitive; to the extent that a self induced failure is by no means out of the question. However, when I changed aircraft types with unfamiliar nav. kit, in the absence of someone to teach me first hand, I downloaded the manuals and read them, then sat in the aircraft with an external power supply plugged in. I didn't give up until I was happy with the equipment. Surely this is what we should all be prepared to do, or stay on the ground until competent?

Having said all this, obviously a sound knowledge of basic nav techniques is essential or there could be no DR fallback plan.

[IO540]

My concern is that the "multifunctional" radio/nav equipment switchery in some modern aircraft is so complicated that it can be counterintuitive; to the extent that a self indinduced failure is by no means out of the question. However, when I changed aircraft types with unfamiliar nav. kit, in the absence of someone to teach me first hand, I downloaded the manuals and read them, then sat in the aircraft with an external power supply plugged in. I didn't give up until I was happy with the equipment. Surely this is what we should all be prepared to do, or stay on the ground until competent?

Couldn't agree more.

OTOH it is a bit hard to legislate for a "complex avionics type rating" and IMHO there should not be one, because ultimately the regulator has no business legislating to cover every possible kind of stupidity. There will always be people happy to go up in a plane whose equipment they don't understand, and since one can fly it on a PPL, yet the only way to deal with this would be a mandatory ground school, yet there is no mandatory ground school for anything in the PPL, it just has to be left to the pilot to realise he needs to clue himself up.

When I did the IR in the USA, I deliberately chose a school which did not have GPS equipped planes, because the stuff I have (KLN94/KMD550) is very different from the Garmin x30 kit which most schools had, and I didn't want to spend 2-3 days learning how to operate the kit to fly GPS approaches, with the missed approach nooks and crannies, only to come back to Europe where this stuff is practically irrelevant.

[172driver]

I somewhat find it hard to believe we are even having this discussion. NOT using a GPS does, IMHO, border on madness. That the use is apparently not even taught in the JAR CPL syllabus simply beggars belief
For crying out loud - use everything at your disposal for a safe flight!

Re the 'club plane' scenario, there is a simple and effective way around this: buy your own portable unit, get really familiar with it and use the installed one as backup.

The above of course only works if the installed one is not one of the fancy 'all functions in one box' models, a la GNS 430. In which case there are free CDs to use at home for training. I sometimes (very rarely) fly a GNS430 equipped a/c and always do half an hour or so with the sim before the flight until I get back into the swing, so to speak.

[Islander2]

I think the point is that is doesn't say "map", is just says "sufficient nav data" which most have interpreted as "map". Since most aviation law seems to be acquired from clubhouse gossip instead of reading the actual rules this kind of thing becomes common belief

Shunter, should you read the actual rules rather than rely on clubhouse gossip, you'll find that the UK ANO does indeed say "map", not "sufficient nav data"! From Schedule 4, Scale A(2), which is a legal requirement for flight by all aircraft registered in the UK:

"Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment necessary ............... for the intended flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected."

However, these items of equipment do not need to be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA; and nowhere does the ANO specify that they have to be in paper form.

[IO540]

Maps, charts, codes...

When is a map a map and not a chart?

Is "codes" a one-time pad and a codebook, for decoding notams?

This bollox was written in the 16th century, when navigators were real men who either used their sextant correctly, or they got to walk the plank, and the rest of the crew then starved to death, and their ghost ships foundered on the rocks on some distant continent.

Nobody could get prosecuted in the UK under this kind of wording, IMHO, for simply not carrying any nav data with them.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

"Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment necessary ............... for the intended flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected."

In other words ... if you know your local area, and know the way to a couple of diversion airfields, no map or chart need be carried, because none is "necessary ... for the intented flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected".

[Sciolistes]

NOT using a GPS does, IMHO, border on madness.

Disagree, there is absolutely no need for a GPS during a VFR flight if you are comfortable with flying a speed & heading, a chart, watch and pencil. There is nothing wrong with GPS either. If you are proficient you are proficient.

For crying out loud - use everything at your disposal for a safe flight!

Kind of agree. But I think that is too simplistic an argument. The phrase "safe flight" is a platitude and doesn't help me understand what one's considerations and priorities are. Taken literally (probably not what you intended) I would need to follow my DR plan as well as monitor the GPS as well as VOR and ADF...too much. Make a decision what your primary means of navigation is and what specifically you will do to verify the position and crucially, what you will do if the position is sufficiently in disagreement. GPS as primary nav? Why not, so long as you can fix an accurate position at regular pre-determined intervals using either radio nav or pilotage. If the latter, one needs to very very careful of confirmation bias!

That the use is apparently not even taught in the JAR CPL syllabus simply beggars belief

Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail. I would disagree in allowing somebody to use a GPS for the enroute nav detail of the CPL, if somebody can't predict their future position within reasonable tolerances 100% of the time by flying a heading and speed then they can't possibly qualify as a professional pilot (IMHO). Once a pilot flies commercially, their type rating and/or line training will teach them what they need to know about the kit relevant to their operations.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail. I would disagree in allowing somebody to use a GPS for the enroute nav detail of the CPL, if somebody can't predict their future position within reasonable tolerances 100% of the time by flying a heading and speed then they can't possibly qualify as a professional pilot (IMHO). Once a pilot flies commercially, their type rating and/or line training will teach them what they need to know about the kit relevant to their operations.

Well if your opinion is correct I can not possibly be considered a professional pilot because there have been many times in the past I was not anywhere near 100% sure of exactly where I was.

However since the navigation aids have improved from the Radio Range when I first started to fly to what is available today my averages have improved considerably.

The GPS is beyond doubt the most accurate aid to navigation we have ever had not to mention it is a VOR, ADF,DME and map all in one easy to understand and use unit.

IMHO that is.


The difference in long over ocean navigating today using GS compared to D.R. and ADF is like having progressed from the horse and buggy to the jet age. Map reading on trans oceanic flight is not an option.

Mind you the ADF was nice to have sometimes when we couldn't get a star or sun shot with the astro compass.

[Sciolistes]

Well if your opinion is correct I can not possibly be considered a professional pilot because there have been many times in the past I was not anywhere near 100% sure of exactly where I was.

OK, well perhaps I should make it clear that I haven't gone trans Atlantic nor traversed the Goby in a Cub yet

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sciolistes my post was meant to point out that using DR navigation and map reading is a basic skill that will get you from point A to point B in areas where map reading is possible, however to not use modern aids such as GPS is rather foolish considering all the work it saves allowing you to concentrate on looking outside more.

Ocean flying is not the only place that map reading is not a reliable option, there are vast areas of the earth that are desert and have nothing but light brown sand from horizon to horizon with nothing to use as a point of reference for your location. When flying in the Sarah desert we pinpointed our progress every 25 miles by marking X's on the map using the GPS as our method to determine same......I have been using GPS ever since it replaced Loran and it has been so reliable that I would say it was as close to 100% accurate as I could ever want.

I am building a Cub as a play toy and it will not have any mechanical instruments in it, nor will it have a VOR or ADF or any of those ancient devices in it.

It will have a Dynon EFIS with the engine monitoring system and for navigation it will have my new ATC portable GPS from Anywheremap.

For communication it will have a Garmin radio, intercom and transponder.