When things go wrong
Pompey till I die
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When things go wrong
Yesterday I flew down to the south coast with a decent weather forecast. When I got there it was horrible: hazy, misty just awful. I must admit I thought it was a little bit of "yuck" and I'd fly through it, I didn't.
Whilst still legal (in sight of sound, 4km visibility) it was way outside what I was confident in.
I was very happy to abandon my plog, tune the VOR to home as well as switch the GPS to "get me home". I followed both of these and was home safe and sound 15mins later.
However it dawned on me that whilst VFR flight is possible in those situations, VFR navigation is NOT.
Therefore, isn't flying on GPS basically flying on "instruments" ?
Yes I expect to be lectured on how I shouldn't have pressed on thnking it would be better etc. I think I should've turned back earlier but the forecast was ringing in my ears. I'd be more interested in discussing if GPS is flying on instruments and maybe we should avoid it all together if VFR ?
I still don't know what I'd do if GPS did not cross reference with what the VOR was saying.
Whilst still legal (in sight of sound, 4km visibility) it was way outside what I was confident in.
I was very happy to abandon my plog, tune the VOR to home as well as switch the GPS to "get me home". I followed both of these and was home safe and sound 15mins later.
However it dawned on me that whilst VFR flight is possible in those situations, VFR navigation is NOT.
Therefore, isn't flying on GPS basically flying on "instruments" ?
Yes I expect to be lectured on how I shouldn't have pressed on thnking it would be better etc. I think I should've turned back earlier but the forecast was ringing in my ears. I'd be more interested in discussing if GPS is flying on instruments and maybe we should avoid it all together if VFR ?
I still don't know what I'd do if GPS did not cross reference with what the VOR was saying.
Moderator
I have flown legal VFR in a helicopter with no radio navigation aids at all, in one and a half forward visibility. It's not easy, and you'd better be prepared, with a route you are familiar with, and a current chart, but it can be done. The helicopter gets the lower limit, because, as I learned first hand. When it gets really bad, you stop into a hover, turn around on the spot, and go back!
I agree that VFR flight with reference to the ground is difficult in very low vis, which is why, for my experience, weather briefings for those conditions will generally include a reference to VFR not recommended. Under certain circumstances, I will do it down to limits, if I know the route and the plane very well.
As for GPS in these situations, unless it is an IFR certified GPS, it probably has a placard somewhere which says that it is not intended as a primary reference for navigation - for this very reason. It can get you into situations you'll have trouble getting out of.
As VFR requires navigation with visual reference to the ground, there is a point at which the ground is moving too quickly for safe "watching where you're going", and it doesn't work well any more. (Cell phone towers com at you too quickly!
)
Knowing when to turn around is a personally developed "limitation", often learned by leaving it too late once!
I agree that VFR flight with reference to the ground is difficult in very low vis, which is why, for my experience, weather briefings for those conditions will generally include a reference to VFR not recommended. Under certain circumstances, I will do it down to limits, if I know the route and the plane very well.
As for GPS in these situations, unless it is an IFR certified GPS, it probably has a placard somewhere which says that it is not intended as a primary reference for navigation - for this very reason. It can get you into situations you'll have trouble getting out of.
As VFR requires navigation with visual reference to the ground, there is a point at which the ground is moving too quickly for safe "watching where you're going", and it doesn't work well any more. (Cell phone towers com at you too quickly!
)Knowing when to turn around is a personally developed "limitation", often learned by leaving it too late once!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting one.
I know so many PPLs who fly VFR solely with reference to the GPS. No sign of a plog or a chart! I always wonder what they would do if everything packed up on them or the GPS is inaccurate (as has been the case with a few documented zone infringements).
Now, I'll stop being an old fart for 5 minutes. The GPS is an incredibly useful tool to use, as it does improve situational awareness (providing it's working!) It can also reduce our workload as many GPSs can do all sorts of other clever things without us having to think about it. No wonder that so many pilots use them. It strikes me that perhaps it is the legislation that should be changing to meet the technological changes of today.
I am not saying we should all go out and fly IFR just on a GPS, but the situation you found yourself in does raise some interesting issues. The problems seem to arise when people use their GPS as if they're flying on instruments without looking outside the aircraft to make sure things add up.
I know so many PPLs who fly VFR solely with reference to the GPS. No sign of a plog or a chart! I always wonder what they would do if everything packed up on them or the GPS is inaccurate (as has been the case with a few documented zone infringements).
Now, I'll stop being an old fart for 5 minutes. The GPS is an incredibly useful tool to use, as it does improve situational awareness (providing it's working!) It can also reduce our workload as many GPSs can do all sorts of other clever things without us having to think about it. No wonder that so many pilots use them. It strikes me that perhaps it is the legislation that should be changing to meet the technological changes of today.
I am not saying we should all go out and fly IFR just on a GPS, but the situation you found yourself in does raise some interesting issues. The problems seem to arise when people use their GPS as if they're flying on instruments without looking outside the aircraft to make sure things add up.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Returning from Headcorn to Biggin last night at about 1700 local, Biggin ATIS was giving 10k & NSC. Forward visibility was rubbish, maybe only 1-2k, made worse by the sun. This is not uncommon heading back to Biggin in the evenings, the london smog can make it quite difficult.
I'm glad there's a VOR on the field.
I'm glad there's a VOR on the field.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As VFR requires navigation with visual reference to the ground,
Obviously if you planned your VFR flight to be flown using ground references/VRPs, then you have to be able to see these, or change the plan. But if your flight was planned to make use of radio navigation of some sort (NDB, VOR, GPS), and planned above the MSA, you would not need to be in sight of the surface, would you?
I'm not questioning the practicality of this, just the legal aspect. Of course, practically speaking you've got to have a plan to deal with engine failures or the eventual arrival at your destination. But I can well imagine (and in fact, will admit to) flying over a layer of ground mist, temporarily obscuring all ground features, when you know that that mist layer will end in a few miles.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do not need to see the ground fetures, just fly headings and times until a decent feature is available, bearing in mind any high ground in the area.
A useful thing if you're up against what you hope is only a small patch of poor vis is tuning an ATIS for an airfield you hope is on the otherside, or failing that asking whoever you're talking to (london info etc) for the latest weather at a specific airfield. Note, this is only where the vis is 3-5k where you can legally still fly but not perhaps navigate by feature crawling. If you're up against very low cloud or a snowstorm, always best to turn back.
A useful thing if you're up against what you hope is only a small patch of poor vis is tuning an ATIS for an airfield you hope is on the otherside, or failing that asking whoever you're talking to (london info etc) for the latest weather at a specific airfield. Note, this is only where the vis is 3-5k where you can legally still fly but not perhaps navigate by feature crawling. If you're up against very low cloud or a snowstorm, always best to turn back.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that may be a slightly different thing than groping around in the crap, at low level. VFR on top, can be delightful
It is an interesting situation, when you hit the wall of haze/mist/cloud/fog, call it what you will, press on possibly relying on a GPS
A scenario can be crossing the Channel, Special VFR, in haze. Basically it can be full IFR, and flying on instruments. I certainly find that I have to do one or other - fly on instruments ensuring scan remains there, with a nominal check on the magenta line, or partial visual, looking at GPS, and perhaps other aids tuned in. I do find it difficult to instrument fly, and attempt to follow a GPS. That may well be me however and my cockpits config, also hand flying as a pose to auto.
The poster did the correct thing in RTB, and again recently I hit the same scenario flying off Lands End. Clear VFR at Newquay, past St Ives, then a wall at Lands End. Heavy IFR if I had ploughed on. Turned back. Scilly Isles another day, and they were giving reasonable VFR.
It is an interesting situation, when you hit the wall of haze/mist/cloud/fog, call it what you will, press on possibly relying on a GPS
A scenario can be crossing the Channel, Special VFR, in haze. Basically it can be full IFR, and flying on instruments. I certainly find that I have to do one or other - fly on instruments ensuring scan remains there, with a nominal check on the magenta line, or partial visual, looking at GPS, and perhaps other aids tuned in. I do find it difficult to instrument fly, and attempt to follow a GPS. That may well be me however and my cockpits config, also hand flying as a pose to auto.
The poster did the correct thing in RTB, and again recently I hit the same scenario flying off Lands End. Clear VFR at Newquay, past St Ives, then a wall at Lands End. Heavy IFR if I had ploughed on. Turned back. Scilly Isles another day, and they were giving reasonable VFR.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirement to see some piece of the surface when flying under VFR applies to UK issued PPLs (post-JAA only, I think) unless accompanied by an IMCR or an IR.
The requirement applies worldwide.
The requirement applies worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a somewhat used navigation manual dated 194
Yep put together by those navigation types that ended up running the CAA!
But it has a really useful little set of cardboard templates -with circles of 3 to 10 miles which fit a half million chart. Great fun to use and quite eye opening.
I have found them,or rather the knowledge of them really useful in smoggy conditions - they make you look for simple landmarks, things which cannot be confused, simple line features, features which do not rely upon prolonged DR headings but which give you a definite confirmation every couple of minutes.
With this sort of approach - no you do not need instruments, just a bit of planning. But if you want to fly 100 or 250 miles on a DR heading and then find the 'right landmark' then you are heading into the terriority of the Kingsford Smith's, Francis Chichesters etc.
Yep put together by those navigation types that ended up running the CAA!
But it has a really useful little set of cardboard templates -with circles of 3 to 10 miles which fit a half million chart. Great fun to use and quite eye opening.
I have found them,or rather the knowledge of them really useful in smoggy conditions - they make you look for simple landmarks, things which cannot be confused, simple line features, features which do not rely upon prolonged DR headings but which give you a definite confirmation every couple of minutes.
With this sort of approach - no you do not need instruments, just a bit of planning. But if you want to fly 100 or 250 miles on a DR heading and then find the 'right landmark' then you are heading into the terriority of the Kingsford Smith's, Francis Chichesters etc.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The requirement to see some piece of the surface when flying under VFR applies to UK issued PPLs (post-JAA only, I think) unless accompanied by an IMCR or an IR.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of "accompanied by" I should have said "the license includes"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its actually dated 1943 - whoops. But fascinating nonetheless. The scary thing is how little things have changed - in terms of methods.
But then visual navigation is visual navigation - but the methods for establishing where you are, when 'uncertain' of your position did not get any attention during my PPL training......
But then visual navigation is visual navigation - but the methods for establishing where you are, when 'uncertain' of your position did not get any attention during my PPL training......
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i believe it is only a uk requirement!
although i seem to remember that vfr on top is considered an ifr flight by the faa for example.
in france i have reguarly experienced a milk soup kind of haze where technically you are oke for vfr .. but really ... it is dangerous.
it is THE main reason why i am installing tas in my ac.
i have to add to this that if you are on the ground it seems like a supernice day!!
although i seem to remember that vfr on top is considered an ifr flight by the faa for example.
in france i have reguarly experienced a milk soup kind of haze where technically you are oke for vfr .. but really ... it is dangerous.
it is THE main reason why i am installing tas in my ac.
i have to add to this that if you are on the ground it seems like a supernice day!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR on-top is acceptable in US for PPL holders.
As far as I know, no legal requirement to navigate using visual references VFR. Just need to fulfill visibility and cloud clearance limits. There are times, e.g. transitioning over large pools of water, when you simply can't do anything but using VOR/GPS or just dead reckoning until landfall. Personally I wouldn't base my navigation on VOR/GPS when a chart can be used. I see it as an art making my way forward with just a chart & compass. GPS and NAVAIDs are a great back-up, last resort, tools. But for my own pleasure if I get lost I would try to find myself on the chart first. That's me, other's opinions are respected.
As far as I know, no legal requirement to navigate using visual references VFR. Just need to fulfill visibility and cloud clearance limits. There are times, e.g. transitioning over large pools of water, when you simply can't do anything but using VOR/GPS or just dead reckoning until landfall. Personally I wouldn't base my navigation on VOR/GPS when a chart can be used. I see it as an art making my way forward with just a chart & compass. GPS and NAVAIDs are a great back-up, last resort, tools. But for my own pleasure if I get lost I would try to find myself on the chart first. That's me, other's opinions are respected.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is like I wrote i.e. you need to see the surface when flying VFR if
1) Your license is UK issued, and
2) You have neither an IMCR or an IR
The airspace or the country are irrelevant.
So e.g. an FAA PPL holder can fly VFR out of sight of surface in the UK. Currently he can do it in a G-reg too, due to the automatic validation of ICAO licenses (due to end April 2012, AIUI).
1) Your license is UK issued, and
2) You have neither an IMCR or an IR
The airspace or the country are irrelevant.
So e.g. an FAA PPL holder can fly VFR out of sight of surface in the UK. Currently he can do it in a G-reg too, due to the automatic validation of ICAO licenses (due to end April 2012, AIUI).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: QLD
Age: 35
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really see the navigation issue... why wouldn't you want to use RNAV as
primary navigation as lang as you maintain VMC?
Since apparently things always work a litte different in CAA-Land (VFR on-top, IMC-Rating,...) I can not talk for the UK
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?
maehhh
primary navigation as lang as you maintain VMC?
Since apparently things always work a litte different in CAA-Land (VFR on-top, IMC-Rating,...) I can not talk for the UK
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?
maehhh
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can not talk for the UK
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?