Looking out of the window while VFR?
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 36
From: France
Yes, I just presented the problem in a way which made it sound like I was giving the solution. Perhaps I have a future in politrickery?
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Toulouse
Hello Ossie!
Long time no hear!
I still regret the 'RB story from time to time!
We'll see, I'm more into "efficiency" nowadays, but whatever it is, no GPS
The Auster was great but it didn't do very much with all of the avgas that it consumed.
How many Austers do you have these days?
I still regret the 'RB story from time to time!
We'll see, I'm more into "efficiency" nowadays, but whatever it is, no GPS
The Auster was great but it didn't do very much with all of the avgas that it consumed.How many Austers do you have these days?
Joined: Aug 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 129
From: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Hello!
VOD80:
Thank you for pointing me to that article, interesting reading indeed. But the accidents described are mainly "continuing VFR flight into IMC with subsequent loss of control or CFIT". This kind of accident was "invented" long before GPS.
For many years I've been a subscriber of the British GA magazine "Pilot" (there is nothing comparable in Germany!) and there is not a single issue without at least three reports of zone infringements by GA aircraft who got lost. Many of them force airliners to go around and some even trigger collision alerts. Totally unnecessary risks and expenses - for the extra 15 minutes flying time of an airliner you can buy the best handheld GPS on the market and have it gilded or even platinum plated...
What I don't like about this kind of discussion (the one here is not the first of its kind and I have also had it with some of my instructor colleagues (*)) is the idea, that there exist "good" and "bad" instruments and/or navigation aids. Compass and airspeed indicator seem to be considered "good" ones and radio navigation aids in general and especially GPS are the bad ones.
In reality, the contrary is the case: The compass gives you magnetic heading information (that is totally irrelevant for navigation!) with a precision of no more than five degrees and the ASI gives you nothing but a rough estimate of airspeed - again irrelevant for navigational purposes. The cheapest and easiest GPS (like the one contained in my mobile phone...) show you what you really need: Ground track and groundspeed, both with at least two decimal places of precision. And if you get the second cheapest GPS, it will even show you the boundaries of restricted airspace and warn you about them. Why should one make life more difficult than it already is by refusing this kind of help?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not contrary to steam driven navigation at all. As a matter of fact I learned to fly long before GPS became available to the masses and I collect navigation tools of all kinds and like to use them every now and then. But I refuse to send students on solo cross country flights without a functioning GPS unit on board.
Greetings, Max
(*) As you can easily imagine, none of the CPL/IR instructors I know has ever opposed GPS!
VOD80:
I know, probably statistically tenuous (not many accidents) and also because there is no evidence to support the other side of the argument (how many people have been saved by GPS, how many people have crashed because they had no GPS) but interesting reading anyway!
For many years I've been a subscriber of the British GA magazine "Pilot" (there is nothing comparable in Germany!) and there is not a single issue without at least three reports of zone infringements by GA aircraft who got lost. Many of them force airliners to go around and some even trigger collision alerts. Totally unnecessary risks and expenses - for the extra 15 minutes flying time of an airliner you can buy the best handheld GPS on the market and have it gilded or even platinum plated...
What I don't like about this kind of discussion (the one here is not the first of its kind and I have also had it with some of my instructor colleagues (*)) is the idea, that there exist "good" and "bad" instruments and/or navigation aids. Compass and airspeed indicator seem to be considered "good" ones and radio navigation aids in general and especially GPS are the bad ones.
In reality, the contrary is the case: The compass gives you magnetic heading information (that is totally irrelevant for navigation!) with a precision of no more than five degrees and the ASI gives you nothing but a rough estimate of airspeed - again irrelevant for navigational purposes. The cheapest and easiest GPS (like the one contained in my mobile phone...) show you what you really need: Ground track and groundspeed, both with at least two decimal places of precision. And if you get the second cheapest GPS, it will even show you the boundaries of restricted airspace and warn you about them. Why should one make life more difficult than it already is by refusing this kind of help?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not contrary to steam driven navigation at all. As a matter of fact I learned to fly long before GPS became available to the masses and I collect navigation tools of all kinds and like to use them every now and then. But I refuse to send students on solo cross country flights without a functioning GPS unit on board.
Greetings, Max
(*) As you can easily imagine, none of the CPL/IR instructors I know has ever opposed GPS!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Max
That is one of the most straightforward, rational and intelligent posts on the subject that I have read.
Just remember you are dealing with the country that has pounds for weight, pounds for money, inches and yards for distance etc.
Some of them are a bit reluctant to take new ideas on board (as an Ex pat Brit, I have some experience of my countrymen.)
That is one of the most straightforward, rational and intelligent posts on the subject that I have read.
Just remember you are dealing with the country that has pounds for weight, pounds for money, inches and yards for distance etc.
Some of them are a bit reluctant to take new ideas on board (as an Ex pat Brit, I have some experience of my countrymen.)
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
It seems the true reason for carrying a GPS aboard a VFR flight has been missed here. Though it is capable of providing incredibly useful navigation information to the pilot, it's true purpose is to be the object of the blame when you have to explain why you were lost.
In the old days, you would have to simply hold the chart, with the pencil line, and try to come up with some reason why you had landed at an airport which was not at the end of that line. It was all your fault! It was just you and the chart, and everyone knows that charts can't be at fault!
Now, with portable GPS (portable for a reason I'll present in a minute), you can use highly technical terminology, make reference to global database errors, great circle routes, and heading vs bearing vs course made good, and generally dazzle your passengers into belieiving that the fact that you ended up lost, was truly not your fault, all while waving your hands around this technological wonder in the radio stack.
To ease your ability to use the GPS as you defense for being lost, and enable a larger audience than you can fit/coax into the cockpit, the GPS manufacturers have kindly made them portable, so you can actually carry that offending artificail intellgence pilot decision making unit to the club house/control tower, or wherever the accusations of pilot failure have originated. You don't have to risk your defense not being accepted, because all you could do was to point to an airplane across the apron, and promiss that there was an offending unit in the radio stack to be blamed.
So, look out the window to your heart's content. Leave the GPS running in the background. If you land where to intended, great! Receive the accolades, and take al the credit (even if you did peek at the GPS). If you ended up somewhere else, you had a great view out the window the whole way along, and you have the GPS to blame, so you pride remains intact! (and after a coffee, you can use it to actually direct you to where you had intended to go in the first place!)
Pilot DAR
In the old days, you would have to simply hold the chart, with the pencil line, and try to come up with some reason why you had landed at an airport which was not at the end of that line. It was all your fault! It was just you and the chart, and everyone knows that charts can't be at fault!
Now, with portable GPS (portable for a reason I'll present in a minute), you can use highly technical terminology, make reference to global database errors, great circle routes, and heading vs bearing vs course made good, and generally dazzle your passengers into belieiving that the fact that you ended up lost, was truly not your fault, all while waving your hands around this technological wonder in the radio stack.
To ease your ability to use the GPS as you defense for being lost, and enable a larger audience than you can fit/coax into the cockpit, the GPS manufacturers have kindly made them portable, so you can actually carry that offending artificail intellgence pilot decision making unit to the club house/control tower, or wherever the accusations of pilot failure have originated. You don't have to risk your defense not being accepted, because all you could do was to point to an airplane across the apron, and promiss that there was an offending unit in the radio stack to be blamed.
So, look out the window to your heart's content. Leave the GPS running in the background. If you land where to intended, great! Receive the accolades, and take al the credit (even if you did peek at the GPS). If you ended up somewhere else, you had a great view out the window the whole way along, and you have the GPS to blame, so you pride remains intact! (and after a coffee, you can use it to actually direct you to where you had intended to go in the first place!)
Pilot DAR
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
My definition of navigation is:
Maintaining straight and level balanced flight along a pre-planned track.
But how you maintain track is down to you. Either by pre-planned visual fixes, pre-planned radio navigation fixes, GPS or a combination of all 3.
Personally, for basic puddlejumping, I like a 'paper' map and line, but also a GPS. But I don't want to stare at the gucci eye-candy of moving maps etc, I just use the CDI for checking any cross-track error.
My activity cycle is thus:
LOOkout for most of the time
Attitude - primarily S&L attitude, fairly obviously.
Instruments - Altimeter confirms correct attitude, ASI confirms correct speed, ball confirms correct balance......and the GPS CDI is the 'trackometer' which confirms that my 'track-itude' is correct!
A chum has an Auster - and a GPS! The GPS altitude is useful as whoever rebuilt his altimeter didn't do a particularly good job as it sticks like crazy, despite all the full-spec Auster vibration!
Maintaining straight and level balanced flight along a pre-planned track.
But how you maintain track is down to you. Either by pre-planned visual fixes, pre-planned radio navigation fixes, GPS or a combination of all 3.
Personally, for basic puddlejumping, I like a 'paper' map and line, but also a GPS. But I don't want to stare at the gucci eye-candy of moving maps etc, I just use the CDI for checking any cross-track error.
My activity cycle is thus:
LOOkout for most of the time
Attitude - primarily S&L attitude, fairly obviously.
Instruments - Altimeter confirms correct attitude, ASI confirms correct speed, ball confirms correct balance......and the GPS CDI is the 'trackometer' which confirms that my 'track-itude' is correct!
A chum has an Auster - and a GPS! The GPS altitude is useful as whoever rebuilt his altimeter didn't do a particularly good job as it sticks like crazy, despite all the full-spec Auster vibration!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
The GPS. Seems we spend more time dicussing it than flying!
It is very satisfying to navigate without it and when taught to navigate properly, there is no reason to bust airspace in good VFR weather. As someone who uses it everyday, I can't knock GPS, but I do find it nice to do it the old fashioned way when given the opportunity.
But one or two have mentioned airspace and the amount of people using it. Granted in CAS there is much more traffic. But OCAS (and I am thinking ooop north here) there seems to be far less military traffic. There are also fewer military aerodromes than there were say 20 odd years ago. Is navigation really that much harder than it was and is there really that much more hardware to avoid?
It is very satisfying to navigate without it and when taught to navigate properly, there is no reason to bust airspace in good VFR weather. As someone who uses it everyday, I can't knock GPS, but I do find it nice to do it the old fashioned way when given the opportunity.
But one or two have mentioned airspace and the amount of people using it. Granted in CAS there is much more traffic. But OCAS (and I am thinking ooop north here) there seems to be far less military traffic. There are also fewer military aerodromes than there were say 20 odd years ago. Is navigation really that much harder than it was and is there really that much more hardware to avoid?
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Toulouse
Good discussion!
This is an interesting discussion.
Pilot DAR, I'd fly with you any day (if you'd have me!)
My own limited flying experience, but based also on a bit of sailing and a lot of desert driving suggests that GPS allows people to set off without carrying out as much preparation, and to also continue beyond when they would have normally given up.
To answer Max (What Next), I would say that CFIT and continued flight into IMC are more symptoms than problems. GPS cannot cure these issues. The problem for the CFIT accidents in the report are lack of situational awareness caused by concentrating on the GPS, the accidents in IMC are an over confidence in a partial situational awareness (horizontal plane) caused by an implicit confidence in something shown on a screen, while lacking the vertical aspect.
Perhaps the moving map needs to be removed from the GPS and replaced with a ruler. You do all your flight planning on charts and as you are carrying it out, the GPS watches you. When you get close to controlled airspace, it gives you a prod, if you infringe, you get a smack on the back of your hand.
Cheers,
Tony
Pilot DAR, I'd fly with you any day (if you'd have me!
)My own limited flying experience, but based also on a bit of sailing and a lot of desert driving suggests that GPS allows people to set off without carrying out as much preparation, and to also continue beyond when they would have normally given up.
To answer Max (What Next), I would say that CFIT and continued flight into IMC are more symptoms than problems. GPS cannot cure these issues. The problem for the CFIT accidents in the report are lack of situational awareness caused by concentrating on the GPS, the accidents in IMC are an over confidence in a partial situational awareness (horizontal plane) caused by an implicit confidence in something shown on a screen, while lacking the vertical aspect.
Perhaps the moving map needs to be removed from the GPS and replaced with a ruler. You do all your flight planning on charts and as you are carrying it out, the GPS watches you. When you get close to controlled airspace, it gives you a prod, if you infringe, you get a smack on the back of your hand.
Cheers,
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tony
I don't mean to be abusive, but you really don't seem to understand how to use a GPS.
Like any tool, it can be misued and if someone chooses to set off under planned, then the problem is their airmanship or seamanship, not the GPS.
It is also part of a suite of nav tools and techniques (including ded reckoning, pilotage, radio nav, vdf etc) and not a stand alone device, so appropriate training on the whole suite is required.
I won't repeat the excellent comments that others have made on good practice in using these aids, but you are starting to sound like an old dog, in a metaphorical sense.
Maybe time to have a think about whether your stance is really sensible.
I don't mean to be abusive, but you really don't seem to understand how to use a GPS.
Like any tool, it can be misued and if someone chooses to set off under planned, then the problem is their airmanship or seamanship, not the GPS.
It is also part of a suite of nav tools and techniques (including ded reckoning, pilotage, radio nav, vdf etc) and not a stand alone device, so appropriate training on the whole suite is required.
I won't repeat the excellent comments that others have made on good practice in using these aids, but you are starting to sound like an old dog, in a metaphorical sense.
Maybe time to have a think about whether your stance is really sensible.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 407
Likes: 9
From: UK
Sod all that! i like to use the force!
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Toulouse
Old dog? Probably!
Final 3 Greens:
Hello F3G,
I started this thread because I haven't flown for a long time. When I stopped, GPS was just coming onto the scene and was little more than a CDI made out of little LCD segments connected to a database that comprised airports and some nav-aids.
I'm an engineer (of sorts) and have spent most of my working life around aircraft systems. You are right, GPS is a tool. Tools have jobs and procedures for using them.
I'm a kind of tongue in cheek sort of a person and it just strikes me that this "tool" has assumed "God like status" and universal panacea properties! Could we imagine transport aircraft operating within RNP0.5 without precision aids? Should IO-540 (interesting web-site that he has!) be required to navigate up and down France without precision aids? Of course not!
Is GPS required for every little flight that ever takes place? Can you not safely and competently navigate across Europe without? I'm amused by how "risk averse" everyone is!
Now, my friend who flies with three GPS, is he on top of the situation?
Cheers,
Tony
I don't mean to be abusive, but you really don't seem to understand how to use a GPS
I started this thread because I haven't flown for a long time. When I stopped, GPS was just coming onto the scene and was little more than a CDI made out of little LCD segments connected to a database that comprised airports and some nav-aids.
I'm an engineer (of sorts
) and have spent most of my working life around aircraft systems. You are right, GPS is a tool. Tools have jobs and procedures for using them.I'm a kind of tongue in cheek sort of a person and it just strikes me that this "tool" has assumed "God like status" and universal panacea properties! Could we imagine transport aircraft operating within RNP0.5 without precision aids? Should IO-540 (interesting web-site that he has!) be required to navigate up and down France without precision aids? Of course not!
Is GPS required for every little flight that ever takes place? Can you not safely and competently navigate across Europe without? I'm amused by how "risk averse" everyone is!
Now, my friend who flies with three GPS, is he on top of the situation?
Cheers,
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tony
It's a matter of choice.
For me, I'd always have it running in the background, even on a simple x-country in good weather to comewhere I've been before and I was just using a line on a chart and pilotage as primary nav.
Why? The NRST and DCT functions reduce your workload if something goes wrong and you need to find an airfield ASAP.
Also, if you have to force land in a field, it's handy to be able to give a precise location to the emergency services (even some mobile phones can now do this.)
It's not, for me, a matter of being risk averse (since light aviation is not a risk averse occupation), more a matter of sensible risk mitigation.
As to whether your friend is on top of the situation, I don't know, but managing 2 x GPS, 2 x VOR and a chart never overloaded me, it helped me look out more as I was more certain of position and proactively managing it, not heads down worrying about busintg CAS or a danger zone.
Anyways, enjoy your flying, hope your comeback works out well.
Is GPS required for every little flight that ever takes place?
For me, I'd always have it running in the background, even on a simple x-country in good weather to comewhere I've been before and I was just using a line on a chart and pilotage as primary nav.
Why? The NRST and DCT functions reduce your workload if something goes wrong and you need to find an airfield ASAP.
Also, if you have to force land in a field, it's handy to be able to give a precise location to the emergency services (even some mobile phones can now do this.)
It's not, for me, a matter of being risk averse (since light aviation is not a risk averse occupation), more a matter of sensible risk mitigation.
As to whether your friend is on top of the situation, I don't know, but managing 2 x GPS, 2 x VOR and a chart never overloaded me, it helped me look out more as I was more certain of position and proactively managing it, not heads down worrying about busintg CAS or a danger zone.
Anyways, enjoy your flying, hope your comeback works out well.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
I suppose one could consider me to be an " Old Dog " I guess and I have been trying desperately to stay out of this discussion.....
however....
Which is the safer more responsible pilot?
Those who accept modern aids to operate aircraft and not only learn how to use them but actually use them.
Or.
Those who stay firmly entrenched in the horse and buggy era proud to let one and all know they are content to do it the way it used to be done.
however....
Which is the safer more responsible pilot?
Those who accept modern aids to operate aircraft and not only learn how to use them but actually use them.
Or.
Those who stay firmly entrenched in the horse and buggy era proud to let one and all know they are content to do it the way it used to be done.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, WA
Like Chuck, I've been reading this with interest. When I learned to fly, up in Alaska a long time ago, a basic whiskey compass and keeping the view from the windshield looking like the map was the primary method of VFR nav. Electronics-wise there was the four course low freq range which required only a receiver and a good set of ears. An ADF receiver was a real plus - they pointed where you needed to go. VOR nav required nose-bleed altitudes, not good for VFR. So when GPS came along, it was considered a gift. So much accurate information on stuff I formerly guessed at. Looking out was still primary but knowing that what you saw was what you planned was very reassuring. You people in the EU have it made. There's a town every ten minutes with rivers, railroads and highways everywhere. The GPS confirms your navigation, probably reduces your time enroute by helping you fly a more accurate course thus saving a few euros, pounds or what on fuel.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Toulouse
Only two choices?
Chuck Ellsworth:
Oh Chuck. That's not fair!
Only two choices?
Don't forget, the last time I flew, there was very little in the way of GPS! Can't I be in a third category where I'm interested in the old way and slightly amused by those who are unable to do things without what looks like the crutches of the modern way?
I love gadgets and I have a GPS (which is a great training aid, actually. It shows how sloppy I fly and I have a lot of fun of reviewing the tracks and seeing where I went wrong and where I can do better!)
I love digital maps as well, but I still like planning a route and following that pencil line to see what sort of stuff I'll be bumbling through.
It's funny how every sport has it's "red button subjects". On the sailing boards it is all about MAB (manky auld boats) vs AWB (average white boats) and the arguments are just as passionate!
I was very passionate about flying, then the passion died, now it's back again! See you soon in the skies!
Those who accept modern aids to operate aircraft and not only learn how to use them but actually use them.
Or.
Those who stay firmly entrenched in the horse and buggy era proud to let one and all know they are content to do it the way it used to be done.
Or.
Those who stay firmly entrenched in the horse and buggy era proud to let one and all know they are content to do it the way it used to be done.
Only two choices?
Don't forget, the last time I flew, there was very little in the way of GPS! Can't I be in a third category where I'm interested in the old way and slightly amused by those who are unable to do things without what looks like the crutches of the modern way?
I love gadgets and I have a GPS (which is a great training aid, actually. It shows how sloppy I fly and I have a lot of fun of reviewing the tracks and seeing where I went wrong and where I can do better!)
I love digital maps as well, but I still like planning a route and following that pencil line to see what sort of stuff I'll be bumbling through.
It's funny how every sport has it's "red button subjects". On the sailing boards it is all about MAB (manky auld boats) vs AWB (average white boats) and the arguments are just as passionate!
I was very passionate about flying, then the passion died, now it's back again! See you soon in the skies!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 519
Likes: 16
From: Luton
EASA's consultation NPA 2009-02b, Section IV (Instruments, data & equipment), page 41, OPS.GEN.400 (c) (1) - in the context that instruments not approved by Part 21 may be carried on a flight states "The information provided by these instruments or accessories shall not be used by the flight crew to comply with (a)." (a) refers to equipment which will enable the flight crew to determine the flight path.
This seems to mean that if you carry a GPS that is not Part-21 approved it will be illegal after 2012 to use the information from it for navigational purposes! We may think that carrying a GPS is a step forward, the authorities do not seem to be convinced unless it is priced out of our range.
This seems to mean that if you carry a GPS that is not Part-21 approved it will be illegal after 2012 to use the information from it for navigational purposes! We may think that carrying a GPS is a step forward, the authorities do not seem to be convinced unless it is priced out of our range.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
From: Betwixt and between
Tony,
You're not alone, where were you when I was embroiled in this debate? Huh?
I guess somehow we'll manage to continue fly inexplicably straight lines and avoid that devilish airspace that just seems to jump out in front of you
I'm interested in the old way and slightly amused by those who are unable to do things without what looks like the crutches of the modern way?
I guess somehow we'll manage to continue fly inexplicably straight lines and avoid that devilish airspace that just seems to jump out in front of you