When things go wrong
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descended through cloud in a small twin on one occasion on a VOR fix. I was below MSA (very naughty I know) which was high just because of a very tall communication mast in the area. I was pretty confident of my fix but burst out of cloud with the thing 1 mile ahead in my 12! Did I learn from this? Probably not.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 36
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although a nice idea it's completely unrealistic to expect pilots flying VFR to use GPS as a backup to visual navigation the way that publications tell us that we should.
My interpretation of the 'proper' technique is that if you fly with a GPS it should only be used to confirm the integrity of any dead-reckoned position. With the airspace system the way it is in the UK and the ambiguity of compass and stopwatch navigation I can't imagine anyone actually doing this.
My opinion is that if you want to navigate primarily using headings and times it's best not to activate the route function in your GPS. All that will happen by having a line displayed on the screen is that you'll see that you're off-course and then turn towards the line, thus undermining all of your calculations and surrendering to the more instantaneous source of information.
If you want to navigate VFR using GPS as your primary method then that's fine. Have a line on a chart and record your fixes periodically in case the unit stops working and you have to revert to DR or feature tracking. Under normal circumstances however there should be no taboo in turning right if the GPS indicates that you're left of track and vice versa.
My interpretation of the 'proper' technique is that if you fly with a GPS it should only be used to confirm the integrity of any dead-reckoned position. With the airspace system the way it is in the UK and the ambiguity of compass and stopwatch navigation I can't imagine anyone actually doing this.
My opinion is that if you want to navigate primarily using headings and times it's best not to activate the route function in your GPS. All that will happen by having a line displayed on the screen is that you'll see that you're off-course and then turn towards the line, thus undermining all of your calculations and surrendering to the more instantaneous source of information.
If you want to navigate VFR using GPS as your primary method then that's fine. Have a line on a chart and record your fixes periodically in case the unit stops working and you have to revert to DR or feature tracking. Under normal circumstances however there should be no taboo in turning right if the GPS indicates that you're left of track and vice versa.
Moderator
Pre GPS, was LORAN C, which some of us thought was a navigational miracle, (until we tastes GPS!). Before LORAN C, and for flights in the north where VOR's and ADF's were not available, there was dead reckoning. You go good, or you got lost. Plan to fly into a lake you've never before seen, to get out the wreck of the guy who had not seen it before last week. That's where it is, go get it. That's when you draw a line on a chart, and the 10 mile marks, and follow it like a hawk. If you get off course, all the lakes look the same, and there are no other features which distinguish your location. As you fly over small and large lakes, whose appearance resembles the blue spot on the chart, you track your progress, and forecast your arrival time to the destination lake. You arrive on time to a shoreline, and then wonder if it the right lake. You circle, and find what you're looking for, and set up your approach. You're going to have to do it all again backward in a day or so.
GPS seems to have made that a thing of the past - of course I'll follow the magenta line!
I brought a 182 back nearly all the way across Canada last year. Across central Saskatchewan (which is effectively featureless) in less than ideal, though still VFR weather, the panel GPS, then both of my hand held Garmins could not receive enough satellites to create a fix - for over an hour! There were no VOR's to receive at my low altitude. I saw a road, and turned south (toward more civilization) and followed it. I continued south to an intersection, and continued east. (forgot to signal turn).
I've had four or five events over the years, when the satellite geometry prevented a useable fix for many minutes at a time. Be ready, just in case, but it's rare...
Some technology just makes things better forever - GPS is one of those....
GPS seems to have made that a thing of the past - of course I'll follow the magenta line!
I brought a 182 back nearly all the way across Canada last year. Across central Saskatchewan (which is effectively featureless) in less than ideal, though still VFR weather, the panel GPS, then both of my hand held Garmins could not receive enough satellites to create a fix - for over an hour! There were no VOR's to receive at my low altitude. I saw a road, and turned south (toward more civilization) and followed it. I continued south to an intersection, and continued east. (forgot to signal turn).
I've had four or five events over the years, when the satellite geometry prevented a useable fix for many minutes at a time. Be ready, just in case, but it's rare...
Some technology just makes things better forever - GPS is one of those....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely no question that GPS has made navigation clearer, simpler and is a fabulous benefit. However, as with everything it is how it is used. If an individual builds his experience, ratings and navigation skills, then with that knowledge GPS can be utilised in so many ways. The workload being removed.
Now, an individual, flying VFR, with limited skill level in navigation, utilising the GPS as sole reference, and not even a map in the cockpit, yes I have witnessed them, and gets into muck, well the ducks start to mount.
I was lucky, I learned all my navigation in a Chipmunk, with a map and stop watch, and no aids, not even a hand held GPS.
Now, on most of my flights, I have most aids ''on'', with my passenger following the map, and keeping an understanding of where we are.
Some 18 months ago I had an electrical failure, 6500', all went including the GPS, however, the map was being followed, and we descended on track into an airfiled that was some 20 miles on the nose. Now, if I had been reliant solely on the GPS, things may have gotten trickier.
I also asaked some fellow pilots, fairly recently, to map read and plog, on a trip of some 225 miles. They did not have a clue, and one had 300 hours
Now, an individual, flying VFR, with limited skill level in navigation, utilising the GPS as sole reference, and not even a map in the cockpit, yes I have witnessed them, and gets into muck, well the ducks start to mount.
I was lucky, I learned all my navigation in a Chipmunk, with a map and stop watch, and no aids, not even a hand held GPS.
Now, on most of my flights, I have most aids ''on'', with my passenger following the map, and keeping an understanding of where we are.
Some 18 months ago I had an electrical failure, 6500', all went including the GPS, however, the map was being followed, and we descended on track into an airfiled that was some 20 miles on the nose. Now, if I had been reliant solely on the GPS, things may have gotten trickier.
I also asaked some fellow pilots, fairly recently, to map read and plog, on a trip of some 225 miles. They did not have a clue, and one had 300 hours
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That used to be the case 20 plus years ago. Instructors wanted pure VFR and no cheating using aids of any sort.
Questions like "can youi show me how to use the ADF" were met with comments like "you need to learn them properly before using them" etc.
In some ways it wasnt a bad thing as you concentrated on pure map and eyeball flying.
Pace
Questions like "can youi show me how to use the ADF" were met with comments like "you need to learn them properly before using them" etc.
In some ways it wasnt a bad thing as you concentrated on pure map and eyeball flying.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my solo XC in 2000/2001 (?) I was not supposed to use any radio nav.
I actually knew VOR/DME stuff (it's hardly rocket science) but it was wiser to not tell anybody...
The total ban on non-visual nav is pretty recent. The skills test in 2001 included just a VOR/VOR position fix.
You got to remember that the bulk of the PPL community is very static. Look around at your local airfield. The average age of the regulars is probably 60+. So most regulars are flying on stuff taught 20-30 years ago.
I actually knew VOR/DME stuff (it's hardly rocket science) but it was wiser to not tell anybody...
The total ban on non-visual nav is pretty recent. The skills test in 2001 included just a VOR/VOR position fix.
You got to remember that the bulk of the PPL community is very static. Look around at your local airfield. The average age of the regulars is probably 60+. So most regulars are flying on stuff taught 20-30 years ago.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got to remember that the bulk of the PPL community is very static. Look around at your local airfield. The average age of the regulars is probably 60+. So most regulars are flying on stuff taught 20-30 years ago.
At 93 does that mean you started flying 70 yrs ago? As one who is not in the 60 plus age group I would think it depends on the age you started flying? Some 60 plus may have started flying a couple of years back some 40 years back!!
It is sad if the average age of regulars is 60 plus as that means that GA is dying
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad if the average age of regulars is 60 plus as that means that GA is dying
One sees the same comments in the USA - the average visitor age at OSH goes up a year every year...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.
Similar to Ham radio, although this has improved in recent years with the removal of the morse test and now there are many of the younger end getting back into it.
Similar to Ham radio, although this has improved in recent years with the removal of the morse test and now there are many of the younger end getting back into it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.
Just wondering how long you have been the chief inspector of flying schools, I dont think we have met.
In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.
Just wondering how long you have been the chief inspector of flying schools, I dont think we have met.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.
Here we go again, the fuddy duddy's have killed GA, and spoiled it all for the youthful generation x.
My buttocks.
If you look further through this Rumour Network, you will read thousands of threads and comments about how LESS SAFE aviation is with technology. Reams of discussion on ''lack of hand flying skills'', drilling perfectly good aeroplanes into the ground due to some half wit not being able to detect an onset stall.
With technology comes differing challenges, the recent SR22 into the drink off Jersey, go read the report
Sorry, basic flying, with basic knowledge and training is a must, otherwise yes GA will be dead.
What was that a spin, what do you mea...........
Here we go again, the fuddy duddy's have killed GA, and spoiled it all for the youthful generation x.
My buttocks.
If you look further through this Rumour Network, you will read thousands of threads and comments about how LESS SAFE aviation is with technology. Reams of discussion on ''lack of hand flying skills'', drilling perfectly good aeroplanes into the ground due to some half wit not being able to detect an onset stall.
With technology comes differing challenges, the recent SR22 into the drink off Jersey, go read the report
Sorry, basic flying, with basic knowledge and training is a must, otherwise yes GA will be dead.
What was that a spin, what do you mea...........
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not that clear cut, and one cannot dispose of complex topics with simple comments.
Sure one needs basic skills, and the schools are paid to teach you those. Many schools fail in that, but there are no easy solutions to that. The CAA does very little to help.
Spin training? The only phase of flight where one's speed should be anywhere near low enough to stall, let alone spin, is on the final approach, or especially the base to final turn, and then you are too low to recover. Speed control is essential in all phases of flight, for all the standard reasons, but spin recovery is unlikely to add to safety in normal GA operations.
I don't think anybody thinks light GA over over-reliant on technology. Airbuses, yes, probably the automation is overdone, some of it has been implemented in a debatable way (AF447 etc) and it is a fact that almost no Airbus pilot fully understands the various systems and their various modes, and evidently it has bitten a few of them... But light GA? No. Cockpit automation is absolutely wonderful. It drives cockpit workload right down, it enables us to navigate more accurately than even ATC can make out on their radar, it has transformed the ability to go places with confidence and safety. And it has transformed flight in IMC from a once haphazard exercise where a pilot knew his position to within a few miles at best (airliners got away with it largely because they were high enough until within ATC radar range) to a precise method where you can pop out of cloud on a GPS approach and the runway centreline is right in front of you. Sure some people don't know how to work it, but what is one to do about that? Well, there are some solutions, like a Type Rating for a GPS
but do you really want regs like that?
I agree with the comment
but that is another broad topic... how to make GA more attractive to today's younger people who have the money but are very strategic as to where they spend it, and where they spend their time. GA needs a lot more women, for a start 
But that won't happen all the time it is dominated by knackered 30 year old rusting wreckage which you have to climb into like some playground contraption...
Sure one needs basic skills, and the schools are paid to teach you those. Many schools fail in that, but there are no easy solutions to that. The CAA does very little to help.
Spin training? The only phase of flight where one's speed should be anywhere near low enough to stall, let alone spin, is on the final approach, or especially the base to final turn, and then you are too low to recover. Speed control is essential in all phases of flight, for all the standard reasons, but spin recovery is unlikely to add to safety in normal GA operations.
I don't think anybody thinks light GA over over-reliant on technology. Airbuses, yes, probably the automation is overdone, some of it has been implemented in a debatable way (AF447 etc) and it is a fact that almost no Airbus pilot fully understands the various systems and their various modes, and evidently it has bitten a few of them... But light GA? No. Cockpit automation is absolutely wonderful. It drives cockpit workload right down, it enables us to navigate more accurately than even ATC can make out on their radar, it has transformed the ability to go places with confidence and safety. And it has transformed flight in IMC from a once haphazard exercise where a pilot knew his position to within a few miles at best (airliners got away with it largely because they were high enough until within ATC radar range) to a precise method where you can pop out of cloud on a GPS approach and the runway centreline is right in front of you. Sure some people don't know how to work it, but what is one to do about that? Well, there are some solutions, like a Type Rating for a GPS
but do you really want regs like that?I agree with the comment
A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.
But that won't happen all the time it is dominated by knackered 30 year old rusting wreckage which you have to climb into like some playground contraption...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Cannot agree with you on modern technology eliminating basic skills and experience.
Anyone who relies on technology is playing a dangerous game.
One of the Citations I fly is so advanced we are graced with a King 90B GPS and no FMC
Yes the aircraft is RVSM and hence the old girl struggles up to FL390 to mix it with the EasyJets of this world passing 1000 feet above or below but even the autopilot has its funny ways and workarounds.
The Senecas I fly are more advanced with one! wait for it sporting a Garmin 530!!! but they are less than half the speed"
The problem with any of this singing dancing technology is it has a habit of letting you down!
Then you are left with your basic skills good for the soul! I am for pilots not aeroplane drivers! That is handling pilots who can smell the ice in the clouds!
That doesnt come from technology!
As for a 30 yr old beat up and smelly C150 no the hirer might not like spending his hard earned cash on such a machine but it wont do him any harm flying basic.
The Cirrus SR22 I flew was so singing and dancing I felt I was sitting in front of a computer game not an aircraft. " You have crashed game reset".
Pace
Cannot agree with you on modern technology eliminating basic skills and experience.
Anyone who relies on technology is playing a dangerous game.
One of the Citations I fly is so advanced we are graced with a King 90B GPS and no FMC
Yes the aircraft is RVSM and hence the old girl struggles up to FL390 to mix it with the EasyJets of this world passing 1000 feet above or below but even the autopilot has its funny ways and workarounds.
The Senecas I fly are more advanced with one! wait for it sporting a Garmin 530!!! but they are less than half the speed"
The problem with any of this singing dancing technology is it has a habit of letting you down!
Then you are left with your basic skills good for the soul! I am for pilots not aeroplane drivers! That is handling pilots who can smell the ice in the clouds!
That doesnt come from technology!
As for a 30 yr old beat up and smelly C150 no the hirer might not like spending his hard earned cash on such a machine but it wont do him any harm flying basic.
The Cirrus SR22 I flew was so singing and dancing I felt I was sitting in front of a computer game not an aircraft. " You have crashed game reset".
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Oct 2011 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pompey Paul, you did the right thing! Return to base is sound thinking; too many press on regardless, and people get hurt.
As for that singing and dancing Cirrus you flew, Pace, have you read the accident report about the guy that got unsure of his position near Banbury not long ago? While trying to push the buttons to get himself headed on a reciprocal, found himself pointing nose down at an all green picture, and pulled the parachute handle.
What's it doing now?
As for that singing and dancing Cirrus you flew, Pace, have you read the accident report about the guy that got unsure of his position near Banbury not long ago? While trying to push the buttons to get himself headed on a reciprocal, found himself pointing nose down at an all green picture, and pulled the parachute handle.
What's it doing now?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew a friends 32 Saratoga, full Avidyne, full glass cockpit. I flew it because he does not know how to work it, technology overload, and yes, he had been trained. He was basically afraid of it, and gues what, the 500k or whatever asset sits on the ground, 5 years old with a 100 hours on it.
Now, I agree IO that this a seperate debate, and is a very large and complex issue, and has been discussed at length, for years now. However, your assertion that the technology is wonderful, and gets everyone in the place, where the want, at the touch of a button, is NOT backed up statistically - vis a vis incursions, crashes, CFIT - the accident rate appears level, therefore this technology has not increased safety. Of course you now get into the whole debate about traing/spin avoidance/GPS etc etc.
I have over a 1000 hrs in many differing types, and I was not comfortable with the full glass - ok I was not trained on it, but, we still managed with all that technology to go into a Danger Area - and got bollocked
Now, I agree IO that this a seperate debate, and is a very large and complex issue, and has been discussed at length, for years now. However, your assertion that the technology is wonderful, and gets everyone in the place, where the want, at the touch of a button, is NOT backed up statistically - vis a vis incursions, crashes, CFIT - the accident rate appears level, therefore this technology has not increased safety. Of course you now get into the whole debate about traing/spin avoidance/GPS etc etc.
I have over a 1000 hrs in many differing types, and I was not comfortable with the full glass - ok I was not trained on it, but, we still managed with all that technology to go into a Danger Area - and got bollocked
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very much a glass devotee and have many hundreds of hours on Avidyne and Garmin.
I think the basic system is pretty intuitive and should be well within the grasp of any pilot as long as they are prepard to invest a little time. Using ground based training software is a very good way of going about this and there are some excellent packages for both the G1000 and Avidyne.
It is without doubt a step up to use the sytem confidently for IFR ops - there are a few gotchas and when the pace hots up during a procedure perhaps because the procedure does not progress according to plan it is not the time to be pressing the wrong buttons.
However I think with any system of this sort, their are those who are going to be a lot more comfortable than others. If you use computers all day I suspect you will be in the first group, and if you have a natural fear of technology and have always lived with a conventional six pack I suspect you will find the transition much more difficult.
In my experience the problem is not so much with the displays; I think nearly everyone with a little time gets quickly accustom to the different ways in which the data is presented but the problems arise with understanding how to transition between the various functions.
I think the basic system is pretty intuitive and should be well within the grasp of any pilot as long as they are prepard to invest a little time. Using ground based training software is a very good way of going about this and there are some excellent packages for both the G1000 and Avidyne.
It is without doubt a step up to use the sytem confidently for IFR ops - there are a few gotchas and when the pace hots up during a procedure perhaps because the procedure does not progress according to plan it is not the time to be pressing the wrong buttons.
However I think with any system of this sort, their are those who are going to be a lot more comfortable than others. If you use computers all day I suspect you will be in the first group, and if you have a natural fear of technology and have always lived with a conventional six pack I suspect you will find the transition much more difficult.
In my experience the problem is not so much with the displays; I think nearly everyone with a little time gets quickly accustom to the different ways in which the data is presented but the problems arise with understanding how to transition between the various functions.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
I must admit to not liking full glass displays but prefer a mixture of the two.
The one Citation is graced with a King 90b which is a pain.
I also fly with the Garmin 530 and that plus conventional is my ideal.
The only down side with the Garmin is its inability to load airways points automatically. I would like the entry point, airway and exit point and everything inbetween loads.
The Cirrus which had all the bells and whistles was overkill in my mind and there was something unreal and detached about the whole thing.
My main concern is becoming to hooked into these systems, relying on them to fill in gaps in basic flying experience.
I can remember flying a beat up old wreck of a Citation from India to the UK.
You didnt need a simulator with that aircraft as it gave you problems real world!
When I collected it the Indians assured me it had a global database which I soon found out was untrue.
After Saudi there was no more data meaning we had to load every point enroute with Lat Longs.
Stuff I call thinking out of the box and good for the soul flying.
It worries me somewhat with pilots who rely too much on displays and ignore their basic flying skills because one day they may need them.
Pace
I must admit to not liking full glass displays but prefer a mixture of the two.
The one Citation is graced with a King 90b which is a pain.
I also fly with the Garmin 530 and that plus conventional is my ideal.
The only down side with the Garmin is its inability to load airways points automatically. I would like the entry point, airway and exit point and everything inbetween loads.
The Cirrus which had all the bells and whistles was overkill in my mind and there was something unreal and detached about the whole thing.
My main concern is becoming to hooked into these systems, relying on them to fill in gaps in basic flying experience.
I can remember flying a beat up old wreck of a Citation from India to the UK.
You didnt need a simulator with that aircraft as it gave you problems real world!
When I collected it the Indians assured me it had a global database which I soon found out was untrue.
After Saudi there was no more data meaning we had to load every point enroute with Lat Longs.
Stuff I call thinking out of the box and good for the soul flying.
It worries me somewhat with pilots who rely too much on displays and ignore their basic flying skills because one day they may need them.
Pace