Looking out of the window while VFR?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all of the threads on GPS seemingly degenerating into this kind of mess, with two very polarised points of view, it is probably not worth continuing.
The posts about having one's head stuck in a map suggest the execution of fundamentally bad technique.
Sadly, I agree with VOD80, whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line. In that regard GPS has a lot in common with Map/Watch/Pencil VFR in that it is badly trained, planned and implemented.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And round and round this argument goes......
Sadly, I agree with VOD80, whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line.
Here is a picture of the GPS I mounted in the Husky.
Sure I could fly it head down while using the GPS but not for long as the Husky does not have an inverted fuel and oil system.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...h/P1020479.jpg
Sadly, I agree with VOD80, whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line.
Here is a picture of the GPS I mounted in the Husky.
Sure I could fly it head down while using the GPS but not for long as the Husky does not have an inverted fuel and oil system.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...h/P1020479.jpg
Moderator
GPS is not a prerequisite for flight. It is an excuse for not teaching for nav properly.
whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line. In that regard GPS has a lot in common with Map/Watch/Pencil VFR in that it is badly trained, planned and implemented.
Too many times, I've climbed into the cockpit with a "new" pilot, who immediately started pulling out equipment from a flight bag, and plugging in wires everywhere. The look of shock on his face, when I said "let's do it without" just to remind him that there is an underlying responsibility to be able to.
An oldtimer flew me 100 mile recently so I could pick up a nordo aircraft. As we were chatting about using GPS for VFR trips, his quit. I laughed, and looked at mine - it had quit too. I pulled out my other little Garmin, and it would not come up either. We looked at each other and laughed, because we knew we'd have to get where we were going the "old way", and dug out a chart. Problem was, the only reference I had to the location we were going was the logged waypoint in my GPS, which was now inaccessable to me. Now it was winter, everything looked very different. Having memorized the location by what crops were found in the nearby fields was no longer of use! I found the private strip first time, but that was just luck, not good navigation!
Use GPS as a reassurance, but don't get caught not being able to find your way without it. That means new pilots; learn good chart navigation techniques. If your instructor cannot teach you, ridicule him/her, and find someone who can!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took along my car sat-nav today on a two hour flight around Kent and East Sussex just for fun. To my surprise I found it quite useful to confirm position on occasion. Mostly I was navigating using Memory Map blown up charts. So no purple line to follow and cost me not a penny in extra kit.
Looking outside the window? Absolutely - else what was the point of the flight?
Having said all that though - when I got home and downloaded the track from the basic walker type Garmin I keep in my flight bag behind the seat - I found I had been just a hair's breadth from the edge of Rochester's ATZ!
Incidentally, a lovely day for flying despite the pessimistic forecast.
Looking outside the window? Absolutely - else what was the point of the flight?
Having said all that though - when I got home and downloaded the track from the basic walker type Garmin I keep in my flight bag behind the seat - I found I had been just a hair's breadth from the edge of Rochester's ATZ!
Incidentally, a lovely day for flying despite the pessimistic forecast.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bogeymen and teddybears...
Hi all! I'm back from a weekend away.
Interesting to see a bit more depth to the conversation. Still lots of different opinions but very little consensus!
It seems that "controlled air space" is some sort of bogeyman and "GPS" is the teddybear that is used for comfort!
Thanks for the discussion, I’ll tie up some loose ends and then I’m out! Happy magenta lines!
With all due respect, Pilot DAR, you mix up your metaphors.
To use the same metaphor, I would have said that "I like to fly fixed gear planes from A to B" to which the “professional” pilot crowd would have answered "it's completely ridiculous, you look stupid, it's less efficient and you're not taking advantage of modern advances" and so on. Apart from that, always a pleasure to read your posts.
The rest is quite interesting as well.
421C tells me that:
OK. I take your word for it. But, last time I looked, my friend's plane had three GPS "installed" (in case there is a special meaning in the ANO/FAR/JAR etc for "installed"!). One is a Garmin 100 AVD that hasn't had a database update in at least 10 years. The other is something like a Garmin 76, similarly on its original database and the last is a 496, roughly a year old.
Not sure what "my cause" is, but I think that if you're telling me that the triple redundant system I mentioned above is equivalent to a Garmin 530/430 setup, or that any time someone cellotapes a GPS to the yoke that it's the same... I'm slipping into the parallel universe again!
I'm interested in day VFR SEP flying and I've never pretended that the way I fly (day VFR SEP, just in case you forget) could be applied to RNP1 (or RNP0.5/RNP0.3 and such like as are following).
I suspect that the same applies to the Auster pilot identified above (the post seems to have gone now) where he is too cheap to get his altimeter replaced and uses altitude information from his GPS. How much is he likely to spend on keeping his GPS up to date? I don't know what kind of GPS, whether it is GPS altitude or baro altitude but - what an interesting attitude. Kind of makes me want to deny ever having been interested in Austers!
What next indeed, "What Next". I wonder again, if we're talking about the same thing. Your mental model of airspace seems incorrect. There is separation between different types of traffic. Airways are Class A, big airports are Class A, others are Class D and so on. We (day VFR SEP) are not allowed in. We're kept separated from the others. Unless we ask, in which case we may be allowed in. "May", because it is conditional. But, this is irrespective of GPS.
Same thing for your TA/RA story. This has (as far as I can see) nothing to do with GPS and everything to do with "transponder" - it's a bit further down the stack - and you should be happy that your three TA/RA events were between aircraft equiped with such!
Class F is open to VFR pilots. No clearance required. So, if you had TA/RA events in Class F, this is a sign that two sets of "see and avoids" failed (to some extent). Again, unless you show me otherwise, GPS is irrelevant. Also irrelevant that lo-cost airlines flies in Class F airspace. This might be a justification for reclassification of the airspace into Class D, but that is a separate discussion.
Some fundamental misconceptions there.
Just to finish, a little word on efficiency for Chuck. In your haste to come and beat me about the head
I think you tripped up over the meaning of the word efficiency. Do you mix it up with “imprecise”? Efficiency is just a measure of the conversion of an input into an output. Think "miles per gallon" in car terms.
To be interested in Austers is to be a worshipper at the altar of inefficiency. Mine would carry 190kg 285nm using 110 litres of fuel in 3 hours. I could land with one hour’s fuel in reserve. The C172 I would like to eventually get would the following: 302kg 285nm using 90 litres of fuel over 2.75 hours (again with reserves of 1hour). With some simple figure of merit, that makes the C172 twice as efficient as the Auster.
I deliberately chose the less efficient solution for romantic (and economic, to be honest) reasons.
I used to fly between Toulouse and Gloucester. The great circle distance is 530nm. I used to fly a distance of 630nm. In this case, it was a reluctance to trust my engine over the 70nm channel and a desire to reduce risk of having to learning to swim!
I used to fly at about 3000 feet when I could probably have got better efficiency by going up higher, but I preferred the view lower down. I flight plan for a couple of hours on paper when I could have got more efficiency using a computer for 15 minutes.
And so on and so on. Loads of conscious decisions to be less efficient than I could have been. But, in my opinion, no discernable impact on flight safety (for a day VFR SEP…)
Interesting to see a bit more depth to the conversation. Still lots of different opinions but very little consensus!
It seems that "controlled air space" is some sort of bogeyman and "GPS" is the teddybear that is used for comfort!
Thanks for the discussion, I’ll tie up some loose ends and then I’m out! Happy magenta lines!
With all due respect, Pilot DAR, you mix up your metaphors.
To me, it's sort of like getting into a Cessna 182RG, and saying well, I'll not bother retracting the wheels, 'cause I never did on the regular 182 I used to fly! Advances are made, we should make good use of them!
The rest is quite interesting as well.
421C tells me that:
No GPSs are "installed" without intergrity monitoring. Every TSO'd panel mount has RAIM and most have RAIM with Fault Detection and Exclusion. Every TSO'd panel mount I know of has a database supplied by Jepp or by Garmin from Jepp. Both these hold Type 2 LoAs showing the same conformity to Do200A/ED76 as airline database suppliers
GA GPS installations frequently fly to a more demanding level of performance simply because the US now has more WAAS approaches than ILS - this is more demanding than any enroute/terminal RNP application I can think of. In Europe, the most demanding is P-RNAV (RNP1) which, ironically, the GA fleet with its fairly homogenous GNS430/530 kit can conform to more easily than many older airliners with legacy FMS.
Sorry VOD80, what ever your point about GPS is, trying to make out that GA IFR GPS is inadequate is not helping your cause.
Sorry VOD80, what ever your point about GPS is, trying to make out that GA IFR GPS is inadequate is not helping your cause.
I'm interested in day VFR SEP flying and I've never pretended that the way I fly (day VFR SEP, just in case you forget) could be applied to RNP1 (or RNP0.5/RNP0.3 and such like as are following).
I suspect that the same applies to the Auster pilot identified above (the post seems to have gone now) where he is too cheap to get his altimeter replaced and uses altitude information from his GPS. How much is he likely to spend on keeping his GPS up to date? I don't know what kind of GPS, whether it is GPS altitude or baro altitude but - what an interesting attitude. Kind of makes me want to deny ever having been interested in Austers!
What next indeed, "What Next". I wonder again, if we're talking about the same thing. Your mental model of airspace seems incorrect. There is separation between different types of traffic. Airways are Class A, big airports are Class A, others are Class D and so on. We (day VFR SEP) are not allowed in. We're kept separated from the others. Unless we ask, in which case we may be allowed in. "May", because it is conditional. But, this is irrespective of GPS.
Same thing for your TA/RA story. This has (as far as I can see) nothing to do with GPS and everything to do with "transponder" - it's a bit further down the stack - and you should be happy that your three TA/RA events were between aircraft equiped with such!
Class F is open to VFR pilots. No clearance required. So, if you had TA/RA events in Class F, this is a sign that two sets of "see and avoids" failed (to some extent). Again, unless you show me otherwise, GPS is irrelevant. Also irrelevant that lo-cost airlines flies in Class F airspace. This might be a justification for reclassification of the airspace into Class D, but that is a separate discussion.
Some fundamental misconceptions there.
Just to finish, a little word on efficiency for Chuck. In your haste to come and beat me about the head
I think you tripped up over the meaning of the word efficiency. Do you mix it up with “imprecise”? Efficiency is just a measure of the conversion of an input into an output. Think "miles per gallon" in car terms.To be interested in Austers is to be a worshipper at the altar of inefficiency. Mine would carry 190kg 285nm using 110 litres of fuel in 3 hours. I could land with one hour’s fuel in reserve. The C172 I would like to eventually get would the following: 302kg 285nm using 90 litres of fuel over 2.75 hours (again with reserves of 1hour). With some simple figure of merit, that makes the C172 twice as efficient as the Auster.
I deliberately chose the less efficient solution for romantic (and economic, to be honest) reasons.
I used to fly between Toulouse and Gloucester. The great circle distance is 530nm. I used to fly a distance of 630nm. In this case, it was a reluctance to trust my engine over the 70nm channel and a desire to reduce risk of having to learning to swim!
I used to fly at about 3000 feet when I could probably have got better efficiency by going up higher, but I preferred the view lower down. I flight plan for a couple of hours on paper when I could have got more efficiency using a computer for 15 minutes.
And so on and so on. Loads of conscious decisions to be less efficient than I could have been. But, in my opinion, no discernable impact on flight safety (for a day VFR SEP…)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Whereever I lay my hat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some advise on keeping your head outside
For the Garmin GPSmap 296 and similar, I would advise against the use of the (akward) Garmin yoke mount. I use a bean bag mount to put the GPS on top of the glareshield. Helps to keep your eyes outside and sattelite signal reception is very good without using the patch type antenna.
Interesting reading concerning the use of GPS in the cockpit can be found at http://http://www.cockpitgps.com/. The document is certainly worth a small donation.
To me it seems pretty obvious a GPS is only a tool assisting you with your navigation. A GPS will not teach you navigation skills and neither will an ADF or a VOR receiver or a map!
Also: learn how to use your tools efficiently. GPS simulators and training courses are available and needed because unfortunately most user manuals coming with GPS units are very much reference oriented and not task oriented.
I distrust built-in GPS units and always use my personal GPS because that is the unit I know and trust: recency of the geo database, additional waypoints I entered, routes I defined and so on.
Have fun flying whatever your preferred nav tools might be!
BTW: you are carrying the most recent version of that VFR map aren't you
Interesting reading concerning the use of GPS in the cockpit can be found at http://http://www.cockpitgps.com/. The document is certainly worth a small donation.
To me it seems pretty obvious a GPS is only a tool assisting you with your navigation. A GPS will not teach you navigation skills and neither will an ADF or a VOR receiver or a map!
Also: learn how to use your tools efficiently. GPS simulators and training courses are available and needed because unfortunately most user manuals coming with GPS units are very much reference oriented and not task oriented.
I distrust built-in GPS units and always use my personal GPS because that is the unit I know and trust: recency of the geo database, additional waypoints I entered, routes I defined and so on.
Have fun flying whatever your preferred nav tools might be!
BTW: you are carrying the most recent version of that VFR map aren't you
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to finish, a little word on efficiency for Chuck. In your haste to come and beat me about the head I think you tripped up over the meaning of the word efficiency. Do you mix it up with “imprecise”? Efficiency is just a measure of the conversion of an input into an output. Think "miles per gallon" in car terms.
I am sorry you have taken my comments as an effort to " beat you about the head " VOD80.
You will note I prefaced my first post with the statement I hesitated to enter this discussion.
I apologize for having done so as my first feelings about your attitude was correct, you did not start this discussion to learn, you already seem to know it all.
I am sorry you have taken my comments as an effort to " beat you about the head " VOD80.
You will note I prefaced my first post with the statement I hesitated to enter this discussion.
I apologize for having done so as my first feelings about your attitude was correct, you did not start this discussion to learn, you already seem to know it all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
I don't know why you feel so strongly about this. As far as I know, I haven't called you any names or anything like that. I try to understand the position of (the collective "you" of all the people who don't agree with me) but I don't seem to be able to get past the name calling.
The paragraph you quote above is an example.
Perhaps I don't speak English as good as I should but that comes across as a criticism - which I gently (spot the smily?) called "beating about the head". I figured you misunderstood what I meant by inefficiency and tried to explain what I mean by "inefficiency".
You take that to mean that I "know everything already"!
I think - I don't know because I don't have my licence back yet - that I can fly cross country without a GPS. I base that on previous experience. I want to understand why everyone feels that the GPS is so indispensible. Is this something that I need to learn? I haven't heard what I would call a compelling reason to abandon my previous position.
Because of this, I've been called grossly negligent, lacking airmanship, stuck in the horse and buggy age and various other things, not only by you but by various others as well.I don't recall anyone "teaching" me, apart from the expression of some opinions that it's to do with controlled airspace.
I'm no stranger to the technology that goes into aircraft. It doesn't take a genius to work out for whom I work. I spent a large part of my working life doing research into computer architectures and we were often denied the luxury of a specious argument, even though it could simplify life enormously!
So, I like to ask questions, I like to measure the arguments and, based on what I hear from those who know more than I, I change my position. Basically, you're suggesting that unless I accept your opinion unconditionally, I know everything...
As Sciolistes said:
How unfortunately true 
I don't know why you feel so strongly about this. As far as I know, I haven't called you any names or anything like that. I try to understand the position of (the collective "you" of all the people who don't agree with me) but I don't seem to be able to get past the name calling.
The paragraph you quote above is an example.
Me, pleasure pliot, I can be as inefficient as I like!
Interesting line of thinking for a pilot.
Interesting line of thinking for a pilot.
Perhaps I don't speak English as good as I should but that comes across as a criticism - which I gently (spot the smily?) called "beating about the head". I figured you misunderstood what I meant by inefficiency and tried to explain what I mean by "inefficiency".
You take that to mean that I "know everything already"!
I think - I don't know because I don't have my licence back yet - that I can fly cross country without a GPS. I base that on previous experience. I want to understand why everyone feels that the GPS is so indispensible. Is this something that I need to learn? I haven't heard what I would call a compelling reason to abandon my previous position.
Because of this, I've been called grossly negligent, lacking airmanship, stuck in the horse and buggy age and various other things, not only by you but by various others as well.I don't recall anyone "teaching" me, apart from the expression of some opinions that it's to do with controlled airspace.
I'm no stranger to the technology that goes into aircraft. It doesn't take a genius to work out for whom I work. I spent a large part of my working life doing research into computer architectures and we were often denied the luxury of a specious argument, even though it could simplify life enormously!
So, I like to ask questions, I like to measure the arguments and, based on what I hear from those who know more than I, I change my position. Basically, you're suggesting that unless I accept your opinion unconditionally, I know everything...
As Sciolistes said:
Well yes. As you have found, the mere suggestion that GPS is not a necessary tool to fly perfectly safely and accurately prompts derision, strange comments alluding airliner ops and shameless attempts at humiliation.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K. it would appear that what I have been trying to say has been misunderstood.
My message is all pilots should avail themselves of all the aids available for flight that can be had and or used and are within the financial reach of all pilots.
Portable GPS is one of these aids, the use of which greatly enhances situational awareness.
As an example of how easy it is to make a decision based on being able to navigate by using basic ded-reckoning navigation rather than take the time to use a modern nav aid, find a copy of Todays Pilot, May 2008.
There is a story there of how using that assumption can really go wrong.
The story is about how I got lost in the Arctic.
My message is all pilots should avail themselves of all the aids available for flight that can be had and or used and are within the financial reach of all pilots.
Portable GPS is one of these aids, the use of which greatly enhances situational awareness.
As an example of how easy it is to make a decision based on being able to navigate by using basic ded-reckoning navigation rather than take the time to use a modern nav aid, find a copy of Todays Pilot, May 2008.
There is a story there of how using that assumption can really go wrong.
The story is about how I got lost in the Arctic.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 9th Feb 2009 at 20:27.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chick writes:
I agree, adding that a pilot should be trained and must be able to navigate without depending on the GPS magenta line but using it as a cross check.
Last month I crossed Europe VFR in an unfamiliar complex aeroplane with marginal weather.
No moving map GPS, only an old "go to" handheld, used to crosscheck VOR and plog headings. Navigation itself was not an issue, but I would have appreciated an instrument that warned me if I was busting airspace (nothing in the post so far) since I was skimming around many ATZs and ZITs and ground references weren't always easly available.
In fair weather blue sky conditions I would not have felt the need for it, having flown many long distance flights without a GPS and enjoying using map, watch and compass.
My message is all pilots should avail themselves of all the aids available for flight that can be had and or used and are within the financial reach of all pilots.
Last month I crossed Europe VFR in an unfamiliar complex aeroplane with marginal weather.
No moving map GPS, only an old "go to" handheld, used to crosscheck VOR and plog headings. Navigation itself was not an issue, but I would have appreciated an instrument that warned me if I was busting airspace (nothing in the post so far) since I was skimming around many ATZs and ZITs and ground references weren't always easly available.
In fair weather blue sky conditions I would not have felt the need for it, having flown many long distance flights without a GPS and enjoying using map, watch and compass.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, adding that a pilot should be trained and must be able to navigate without depending on the GPS magenta line but using it as a cross check.
If the regulatory body in the country that you received your private pilots license did not stipulate that you be taught basic navigation using a map, compass and a watch and insured you in fact did understand same then the country you live in must be truly primitive.
I should know better than get into these discussions for the simple reason it is a no win waste of time.
If the regulatory body in the country that you received your private pilots license did not stipulate that you be taught basic navigation using a map, compass and a watch and insured you in fact did understand same then the country you live in must be truly primitive.
I should know better than get into these discussions for the simple reason it is a no win waste of time.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
Indeed.
Are you suggesting that I better give my ATPL and instuctor ratings back?
Not in my part of the world. And since you wrote in one of your posts that you are flying in Germany too, you may find it useful to familiarise yourself wilth the airspace structure here (Die Luftraumstruktur in Deutschland). We have many airways that go through class E airspace and where "see and avoid" is crucial because (for some reason unknown and uncomprehensible to me), transponders are not mandatory equipment for all aircraft, and therefore air traffic control is unable to provide separation and traffic information.
I am happy about it.
My TCAS events all took place within the traffic patterns of aerodromes with class F airspace and mixed VFR/IFR traffic (like the one here: http://www.edty.de/en/pilot_informat...edty191bam.pdf ) which is marked clearly both on the approach plates and on the VFR charts.
They were caused by aroplanes flying right through these traffic patterns at low level. Had these pilots used GPS, then they might have been aware of the proximity of an aerdrome and would have stayed clear of the traffic pattern. Had these guys looked outside for traffic, then they could have avoided to fly on collision courses with us.
I don't think this is a separate discussion. I think that this will be one of the consequences of people not using the most adequate navigation aids and becoming a threat to others in the process. For every TCAS event we have to file a report with the authority. Three in my case, but I do not often operate in and out of uncontrolled airfields commercially. Others do it a dozen times every day and they file their daily report. Sooner or later, airspace will become even more regulated than it is now and the last remining spots of "open FIR" will be gone. Not that I care much, because I don't fly for recreation a lot, but I still would consider it a loss for all of us. An unnecessary one.
Greetings, Max
Some fundamental misconceptions there.
Your mental model of airspace seems incorrect.
Airways are Class A, big airports are Class A
Same thing for your TA/RA story. This has (as far as I can see) nothing to do with GPS and everything to do with "transponder" - it's a bit further down the stack - and you should be happy that your three TA/RA events were between aircraft equiped with such!
Class F is open to VFR pilots. No clearance required. So, if you had TA/RA events in Class F, this is a sign that two sets of "see and avoids" failed (to some extent). Again, unless you show me otherwise, GPS is irrelevant.
They were caused by aroplanes flying right through these traffic patterns at low level. Had these pilots used GPS, then they might have been aware of the proximity of an aerdrome and would have stayed clear of the traffic pattern. Had these guys looked outside for traffic, then they could have avoided to fly on collision courses with us.
Also irrelevant that lo-cost airlines flies in Class F airspace. This might be a justification for reclassification of the airspace into Class D, but that is a separate discussion.
Greetings, Max
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Win?
Chuck Ellsworth:
What are you trying to win, Chuck?
Is it, in your opinion, indispensable (as in crucial and fundamental) to have and use a GPS for VFR navigation? It seems to be the case. Is it, in the opinion of any civil aviation authority in the world, a prerequisite for safe VFR navigation? Not so far as I know.
Have you, in an articulate manner, explained why I (I don’t want to speak for anyone else here) should, without any justification and against the feelings/knowledge/experience of all the civil aviation authorities of the world, adopt your position?
Or, have you said that someone who doesn’t adopt your position is lacking in airmanship, is stuck in the days of the horse and buggy, is a horse that is taken to the water that won’t drink, is someone who knows everything, has an interesting attitude for a pilot… amongst other things?
Would you consider that name-calling like this is the manifestation of someone who has more experience and knowledge than all of the civil aviation authorities of the world put together? Now, if I were to try your tactics on you, what would be your feelings? What would be your opinion of the intellectual capability of someone who resorted to these tactics?
I should know better than get into these discussions for the simple reason it is a no win waste of time.
Is it, in your opinion, indispensable (as in crucial and fundamental) to have and use a GPS for VFR navigation? It seems to be the case. Is it, in the opinion of any civil aviation authority in the world, a prerequisite for safe VFR navigation? Not so far as I know.
Have you, in an articulate manner, explained why I (I don’t want to speak for anyone else here) should, without any justification and against the feelings/knowledge/experience of all the civil aviation authorities of the world, adopt your position?
Or, have you said that someone who doesn’t adopt your position is lacking in airmanship, is stuck in the days of the horse and buggy, is a horse that is taken to the water that won’t drink, is someone who knows everything, has an interesting attitude for a pilot… amongst other things?
Would you consider that name-calling like this is the manifestation of someone who has more experience and knowledge than all of the civil aviation authorities of the world put together? Now, if I were to try your tactics on you, what would be your feelings? What would be your opinion of the intellectual capability of someone who resorted to these tactics?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again, Max!
OK Max, hello again!
This air space discussion is about the following quote.
The only good example I find in a short search is the referenced document. http://www.egelsbach-airport.com/download/EDFE_HPA.pdf There is a slide that shows the IFR arrivals and departures for Frankfurt. If we use the “same road”, it is only after we have been invited onto it and then under the careful eye of the airspace owner.
But, this is not really the object of the discussion. It’s interesting but irrelevant to this thread, which is about the utility/necessity of GPS for VFR navigation. You, presumably with a GPS and a company policy of “no paperwork below 10,000ft”, still enter into conflict with other traffic. You do not see this traffic until your TCAS tells you about it.
If you are in Class E, you are both responsible for separation. How would GPS help?
This air space discussion is about the following quote.
It is like on the road: The same road is used by “private” and commercial drivers, and if I (private) collide with a taxi cab (professional) we both die, so we had better should talk to each other beforehand…
But, this is not really the object of the discussion. It’s interesting but irrelevant to this thread, which is about the utility/necessity of GPS for VFR navigation. You, presumably with a GPS and a company policy of “no paperwork below 10,000ft”, still enter into conflict with other traffic. You do not see this traffic until your TCAS tells you about it.
If you are in Class E, you are both responsible for separation. How would GPS help?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I learned from a GPS thread...
So, after this long thread, what have I learned about GPS in a VFR application (this is my take on it, and not a copy paste of anyone’s particular point of view).
Here, “could” represents something where the stated benefit is not guaranteed and where the opposite result might occur under certain circumstances. I think one thing would cover the three points below - workload reduction.
Some interesting sites (American, mainly IFR, but which illustrate some of the issues which I see surrounding GPS):
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=16064 similar kind of discussion to the one here, but with the added spice of someone inventing home made “ILS” approaches by creating waypoints 500ft underground
http://aviationmentor.*************/2006/12/flying-in-alphabet-soup.html an interesting discussion on GPS approaches which highlights how something can seem simple but for which workload can increase enormously, especially because of the user interface
http://www.caa.govt.nz/publicinfo/GPS_speech.htm The Kiwi point of view on VFR GPS, from around 10 years ago but raises quite interesting points in a very pragmatic manner.
I personally think VFR GPS doesn’t give anything for free. I don’t think that anyone could just get a GPS and go. As many have stated, there needs to be formal training on its use, its performance and its limitations. Another PPL ground exam? My take on the negatives:
Here, “could” represents something where the stated benefit is not guaranteed and where the opposite result might occur under certain circumstances. I think one thing would cover the three points below - workload reduction.
- It’s a tool that could aid in VFR navigation (here “aid” in the sense of back-up to non-electronic means)
- It’s a tool that could aid in maintaining situational awareness in the airspace that we use
- It’s a tool that could broaden the operational envelop for VFR pilots (reduced visibility, snow covered terrain, featureless terrain…) – but what happens if GPS is lost while in that situation? A little bit like sending babies swimming with armbands. Great while they stay on but what happens if they come off? If the pilot’s not good enough to go without GPS…
Some interesting sites (American, mainly IFR, but which illustrate some of the issues which I see surrounding GPS):
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=16064 similar kind of discussion to the one here, but with the added spice of someone inventing home made “ILS” approaches by creating waypoints 500ft underground
http://aviationmentor.*************/2006/12/flying-in-alphabet-soup.html an interesting discussion on GPS approaches which highlights how something can seem simple but for which workload can increase enormously, especially because of the user interface
http://www.caa.govt.nz/publicinfo/GPS_speech.htm The Kiwi point of view on VFR GPS, from around 10 years ago but raises quite interesting points in a very pragmatic manner.
I personally think VFR GPS doesn’t give anything for free. I don’t think that anyone could just get a GPS and go. As many have stated, there needs to be formal training on its use, its performance and its limitations. Another PPL ground exam? My take on the negatives:
- There are performance issues (complex user interfaces, database currency…)
- There are reliability issues (have you looked at the electrical power supply system on a GA aircraft, for example?)
- There could be, in my opinion, an insidious tendency to delegate responsibility to the machine, for the pilots to find themselves out of the loop. (Cue Iggy Pop, The Passenger… Oh the passenger, he rides and he rides…)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one goes round and round.
It's the old traditionalist v. modernist debate.
It got killed off in sailing some years ago, is to a large degree dead in general aviation, but evidently not quite yet. It will never die because GA is full of characters who just love the old ways of doing things.
Give them the open cockpits and goggles and stopwatches and let them fly the way they want to fly, and leave them alone in the forums. They never make a meaningful contribution.
The rest of us can move on.
It's the old traditionalist v. modernist debate.
It got killed off in sailing some years ago, is to a large degree dead in general aviation, but evidently not quite yet. It will never die because GA is full of characters who just love the old ways of doing things.
Give them the open cockpits and goggles and stopwatches and let them fly the way they want to fly, and leave them alone in the forums. They never make a meaningful contribution.
The rest of us can move on.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VOD80 - you seem to have gone into rant mode. No one has said that GPS is a required item for flight. However, there are a lot of items that are not required but would still be good airmanship to have (for instance more fuel than minimums, spare pencils, a second time piece, etc.) Many people have argued that in today's world a GPS is a very cheap piece of highly functional equipment.
To your list
You are being grossly biased (or wilfully distorting what people are saying). GPS is a tool that is highly effective at aiding navigation (of all types), maintaining situational awareness and increasing the operational envelop.
You are right that it could be mis-employed to degrade safety margins. But the same can be said of all tools - even the most basic tool we all have in our SEP VFR machines (the engine - a cantankerous bit of kit that could fail, reduces the precision of our flying, and as our long distance glider cousins remind us - isn't actually necessary for flying!).
We can all dig out examples of pilots who have used GPS badly. However, it is unfortunate quite easy to dig out examples of pilots that have come to grief or been near misses with air carriers that were using traditional navigation.
Like all of us - as you pick up flying again, you can choose the tools and processes you want to use. Quite a lot of sage advice says, 'don't look down your nose at GPS - it is a great tool. But do spend some time learning to use it.
In addition, if you have been out of the frame for 10 years, you might want to look at some of the new fangled technology for getting NOTAMs, weather, filing flight plans (if you ever leave your country), and contacting airfields.
Note - mobile phones are not required equipment for VFR flight - but I think it is bad airmanship to purposefully head off on a flight without one - who knows, you might even want to book a table at the local pub as you are walking to it after a precautionary landing (due to temporary disorientation and unexpected weather)
To your list
- It’s a tool that could aid in VFR navigation (here “aid” in the sense of back-up to non-electronic means)
- It’s a tool that could aid in maintaining situational awareness in the airspace that we use
- It’s a tool that could broaden the operational envelop for VFR pilots (reduced visibility, snow covered terrain, featureless terrain…) – but what happens if GPS is lost while in that situation? A little bit like sending babies swimming with armbands. Great while they stay on but what happens if they come off? If the pilot’s not good enough to go without GPS…
You are right that it could be mis-employed to degrade safety margins. But the same can be said of all tools - even the most basic tool we all have in our SEP VFR machines (the engine - a cantankerous bit of kit that could fail, reduces the precision of our flying, and as our long distance glider cousins remind us - isn't actually necessary for flying!).
We can all dig out examples of pilots who have used GPS badly. However, it is unfortunate quite easy to dig out examples of pilots that have come to grief or been near misses with air carriers that were using traditional navigation.
Like all of us - as you pick up flying again, you can choose the tools and processes you want to use. Quite a lot of sage advice says, 'don't look down your nose at GPS - it is a great tool. But do spend some time learning to use it.
In addition, if you have been out of the frame for 10 years, you might want to look at some of the new fangled technology for getting NOTAMs, weather, filing flight plans (if you ever leave your country), and contacting airfields.
Note - mobile phones are not required equipment for VFR flight - but I think it is bad airmanship to purposefully head off on a flight without one - who knows, you might even want to book a table at the local pub as you are walking to it after a precautionary landing (due to temporary disorientation and unexpected weather)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
As I was already saying (two, three or four times?): By freeing 100% of your brain and eye capacity to keeping a lookout for traffic.
Maybe you personally are blessed with above standard navigational capabilities and enough funds to permit you to keep flying frequently and stay in training. Then you really need no GPS (but beware of those prohibited zones around the French nuclear powerplants that were established since 2002: The fine for violating one is over 20.000 Euros - that alone would prevent me from flying VFR to France without a GPS...).
But according to my experience, the average (private - but not only!) pilot has only average navigational skills. This is not helped by the fact that the high cost of private flying prevents many pilots from flying more than the required minimum hours. These people devote a lot, often near 100%!, of their mental capacity to keeping the aeroplane straight and level and navigating at the same time. Nothing else. No proper radio calls (ever been flying on a sunny Saturday afternoon after some weekends of bad weather?) and no looking for traffic either. Even if they look outside momentarily, they see nothing because their brain is too busy. For these people a good GPS unit makes all the difference between a safe and rewarding afternoon spent flying or two hours of panic. They need to train using their GPS of course, but this can be done on the ground with no cost involved at all.
This is indeed a good example (Egelsbach). It is one of those airfields where I wouldn't dare to go without a GPS (and I have been there quite often...) _because_ they have so much traffic and so many airspace restrictions. No GPS - me no fly to Egelsbach...
Yes. And this is why everybody must look outside. All the time. As you know, most aircraft have somewhat limited visibility outside and there are many dead angles where you can't see anything. Some more than others (the worst I ever flew was the Metroliner that looks from inside like a Concorde with the visor up - you really only see what you are going to hit the next second). If I can't see him, then he must see me. Or we both die. But he can't see me, while he looks around his map.
Interesting, but this is not about using GPS, it is about abusing GPS.
GPS approaches are one of the most demanding tasks of IFR flying (second only to NDB approaches, but these have nearly disappeared in Europe). They even require special company training when done in the commercial environment. Before moving-map GPS units became commonplace, they were even more difficult and dangerous.
Greetings, Max
If you are in Class E, you are both responsible for separation. How would GPS help?
Maybe you personally are blessed with above standard navigational capabilities and enough funds to permit you to keep flying frequently and stay in training. Then you really need no GPS (but beware of those prohibited zones around the French nuclear powerplants that were established since 2002: The fine for violating one is over 20.000 Euros - that alone would prevent me from flying VFR to France without a GPS...).
But according to my experience, the average (private - but not only!) pilot has only average navigational skills. This is not helped by the fact that the high cost of private flying prevents many pilots from flying more than the required minimum hours. These people devote a lot, often near 100%!, of their mental capacity to keeping the aeroplane straight and level and navigating at the same time. Nothing else. No proper radio calls (ever been flying on a sunny Saturday afternoon after some weekends of bad weather?) and no looking for traffic either. Even if they look outside momentarily, they see nothing because their brain is too busy. For these people a good GPS unit makes all the difference between a safe and rewarding afternoon spent flying or two hours of panic. They need to train using their GPS of course, but this can be done on the ground with no cost involved at all.
The only good example I find in a short search is the referenced document. ...
You, presumably with a GPS and a company policy of “no paperwork below 10,000ft”, still enter into conflict with other traffic. You do not see this traffic until your TCAS tells you about it.
Some interesting sites (American, mainly IFR, but which illustrate some of the issues which I see surrounding GPS):
... someone inventing home made “ILS” approaches by creating waypoints 500ft underground ...
... someone inventing home made “ILS” approaches by creating waypoints 500ft underground ...
...an interesting discussion on GPS approaches which highlights how something can seem simple but for which workload can increase enormously, especially because of the user interface
Greetings, Max
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mmmmmm.....
Whose opinion to take onboard, a pilot/advanced FI with over 25K hours including helicopters, SEP, MEP and turbine aircraft (including A320) or a returning pilot with 250 hours on light singles.
To add to the dilemma, the 25K pilot is recommending using a blend of old and new tools/techniques, whereas the returning PPL seems to view the new technology as being an invention of the anti christ, in its ability to seduce people from the true path.
Now, as a 250 hour pilot, who should I listen to?
Maybe I'll give Ned Ludd a call and get his view.
Whose opinion to take onboard, a pilot/advanced FI with over 25K hours including helicopters, SEP, MEP and turbine aircraft (including A320) or a returning pilot with 250 hours on light singles.
To add to the dilemma, the 25K pilot is recommending using a blend of old and new tools/techniques, whereas the returning PPL seems to view the new technology as being an invention of the anti christ, in its ability to seduce people from the true path.
Now, as a 250 hour pilot, who should I listen to?
Maybe I'll give Ned Ludd a call and get his view.
