AAIB Comment in Clued Up

[172driver]

Quote:
In modern flying (VFR or IFR) there is virtually no need to enter coordinates. If somebody is doing that, they are doing something very weird.

Definitely not so! My "OE" GPS units (GNS 530 and 430 combination) have a 1,000 user waypoint memory bank. Many of these are used and I very often create new ones.

Agree. The 'official' databases often down't show local VRPs, although these are charted. Also, it depends where you are flying. I've flown quite a bit in parts of the world where the official databases are somewhat lacking, to put it charitably. As an example in parts of southern Africa I had to input ALL waypoints and most airstrips manually, the database only has the main airports.

Of course, you don't do this by sitting in the cockpit trying not to make too many mistakes with the rocker switch! Input them at leisure into Garmin MapSource and upload to the unit. MapSource, btw, allows you to cross-check the input against an - admittedly crappy - map. At least this throws up gross errors like the one cumulusrider refers to.

[peterh337]

Yes; I did say "Europe".

I bet there is a lot of DIY waypoint stuff going on in Africa. No real aviation charts for most of it, too.

[mm_flynn]

Mad Jock,

The specific one I was thinking of was American Airlines into Cali. Here are a couple of quick summaries.

NSTB summary

Wiki

A more detailed analysis

In reviewing them, I must admit I may need to take back my comment. While the first two links suggest a system similar to yours, that is a text list of waypoints bearings and distances, the third link implies they did have a moving map and didnt notice the wrong R entry showing a line zooming off to Bogota to the North East.

I can easily see how entering the wrong R NDB into a text based FMS can get you, I do struggle with not noticing that the magenta line takes yoz 150 miles behind and to the left of where you are going.

[POBJOY]

DV 3 Compass failures

I did say 'MY P8 Compass' not those 'standby types' as fitted to most GA aircraft.
Actually never had a magnetic compass fail in anything in over 40 years,even though some were hard to read they were so old.
As a very experienced BA Concorde pilot once stated to me:-
You are either VMC, and can see where you are and where you are going, or your IMC and should be operating as such (with the required equipment)
Its the bit in-between that causes the problems.
I happen to think that a simple GPS is quite a useful aid to flying in the UK,but only if those using them understand the limitations, and are 'trained' to plan accordingly.

[ShyTorque]

Quote:
Presumably you fly to private heli sites, or do some specialist work (electricity pylon inspection)?

There are people posting here who do specific types of commercial work, not relevant to fixed wing GA. You may as well be talking about surveying GPS units...

I just cannot identify any aspect of private flying in Europe with that sort of thing. There is simply no need for such bizzare procedures. The aviation GPS databases are packed with countless thousands of waypoints and it is generally trivial to knock up any desired route using wholly predefined waypoints. Sometimes one ends up a few miles off the shortest route but the actual impact on the ETE is barely noticeable so it is not worth putting effort into an inherently error-prone procedure.

Peter337, your depth of knowledge or experience is often somewhat lacking. Yes, I do fly a helicopter; why do you always try to dismiss this form of aviation? Is it because you have no knowledge and it doesn't fit in with your blinkered proclamations?

My job has absolutely nothing to do with surveying or powerline inspections (what bizarre ideas). Where did I say I was flying commercially? I correctly and legally write "P" for PRIVATE in the tech log for every sector.

I also use the same "standard" nav kit as fitted to fixed wing aircraft, possibly the same kit as you do, to go from A to B. I am simply required to use it in more depth than you obviously do. As far as errors are concerned, I have a system in place to minimise the chance of an input error being made and to correct it immediately if required. Beforedeparture, that is.

Btw, did anyone tell you that you have the same style as IO540?

[mad_jock]

It was a 757-223



It only had a GPWS system not a EGPWS which is manditory in Europe now which is quite a different beastie.

It did have a moving map but not quite whats being discussed here as I would doudt there would be any topographical information on it.

I do struggle with not noticing that the magenta line takes yoz 150 miles behind and to the left of where you are going.

You and me both. Its quite a common problem though with DCT waypoints getting put in off route and then getting executed without a "am I being a dick" check to make sure its not in Japan or some other stupid place (presumeing of course your not flying in Japan)

Its this whole going below MSA milarky and having a situational awarness to even know that your below it while adding in you factors for wind speed and temprature etc which are commonly forgotten about.

[24Carrot]

I often use "user waypoints" fixed wing.

To avoid airspace, or just to simplify a visual approach to somewhere, I often fly a radial towards one VOR/DME, and then at a certain distance from it I turn onto the next leg. Situational awareness can only be helped if that turning point is also on the GPS moving map, but it won't be in the database.

So long as you cross-check the user waypoints (plotting them and checking visually is best, pre-flight) I don't see this as any more dangerous than entering the wrong "Bangor", or even mistaking one town for another on a chart!

To err is human, that's why we cross-check.

[peterh337]

As a very experienced BA Concorde pilot once stated to me:-
You are either VMC, and can see where you are and where you are going, or your IMC and should be operating as such (with the required equipment)

He's right of course but Concorde ops are a world away from light FW GA. They took off, in CAS, under vectors (or own nav) all the way to the far end where they got more vectors to the ILS, and auto land (or hand land if VMC using the flight director).

I can do that too (except the auto land ) with the same predetermined flight characteristics which make navigation a no-brainer. Most IFR flights around Europe are like that, if you file a fairly standard route in CAS and are going between instrument airports.

ShyTorque

I am commenting from the perspective of this forum, which is a) FW and b) GA.

Other ops will have different regimes. I am sure the space shuttle works differently, too. Let's wait for one of their pilots to pitch in

BTW I never failed any checkride in my life, FAA or JAA, so get this right before attacking me personally. In fact my FAA CPL checkride was quite a pleasant experience. What you are no doubt referring to is that I once "failed" a 170A which is a bogus UK-only concept which has not been valid since 1999 but very few people know that, and the FTOs love it because they can get another grand out of everybody even after they are ready for the IRT. You can book the IRT directly with the CAA regardless of the outcome of any "170A flight test". The FTO is obliged to give you the 170A course completion certificate when you have completed the approved course and you can book the IRT with that. The 170A "examiner" I had did various antics like trying to break the nosegear; he thought it was the same as a Cessna, apparently... (spring-connected), and failing me for doing the power checks with the wind behind, for filing an alternate which he didn't like, etc. But it wasn't a checkride; it was a standard revenue raising exercise for the FTO.

[mad_jock]

I have had 3 standby type compasses go tits up.

1 fell off mid flight and I was more concerned about it jamming the rudder pedals.

1 decided to piss fluid everywhere (reckon the FO belted it with his knee board)

And the last one started omitting smoke during the cruise when we turned the panel lights on. I presume because folk had been using it to jam charts behind for a glare shield screwing with the power supply wires.

And I use user waypoints for center fixes and cross check the lat/long with the plate to make sure its reasonable.

He's right of course but Concorde ops are a world away from light FW GA

There really not you know Peter although concorde is proberly the furthest away from GA aircraft in the civilain world 99% of the stuff that the pro's do is exactly the same as if you were flying privately. Hence why there is no distinction between a pro IR and a private one.

[dublinpilot]

Btw, did anyone tell you that you have the same style as that bloke IO540 who failed his commercial check ride a while back..?

What a nasty thing to say.

I think it's fair to say that when people get nasty there is either something wrong with their position or something wrong with their ability to express it.

In any case if I remember correctly Peter passed his cpl first time; and it was some unnecessary per exam assessment that he didn't pass.

If you have any decency, having had an opportunity to consider your comment, you would apologise for it. It's uncalled for and quite nasty and certainly won't encourage new users here to be open to sharing their experiences.

[ShyTorque]

ShyTorque
I am commenting from the perspective of this forum, which is a) FW and b) GA. Other ops will have different regimes. I am sure the space shuttle works differently, too. Let's wait for one of their pilots to pitch in

I do also hold a CPLA and would use the GNS GPS in a very similar way, if fitted to any fixed wing I might fly.

Why do you claim that rotary wing isn't GA?

Dublin Pilot, I certainly will apologise. Providing that Peter337 assures me he isn't the same person as IO540.

[peterh337]

Why do you claim that rotary wing isn't GA?

Only because there is a forum here called Rotorheads, so it would be natural to assume that heli pilots go there and FW pilots come here.

The AAIB remark was squarely in the FW GA context.

Actually my GF just reminded me of something. Shouldn't somebody ask the AAIB for data supporting that assertion? Such a respected body must have supporting data for everything, surely.

[mad_jock]

Would it matter if they had Peter?

You will just say that they are wrong just like you do with anyone else that posts an opinion thats contrary to yours.

Personally I do hope they expand on the subject and also give examples of where things have gone wrong. Might give instructors a chance to pre-warn students of common pit falls and experenced pilots a moment of thought about there own personal procedures.

[ShyTorque]

Only because there is a forum here called Rotorheads, so it would be natural to assume that heli pilots go there and FW pilots come here.

So as a rotary pilot, you would wish to moderate me off this forum altogether? But as a fairly experienced fixed wing pilot, by the same rule, it's surely also inappropriate for me to go to Rotorheads.

Btw, I'm waiting to apologise, if you would be so kind. I've already removed the comment seen as "nasty".

[Pace]

Peter

I for one realise that GPS is probably one of the biggest if not the biggest advancement in navigation this century so what Are my concerns.
It worries me somewhat when pilots become too dependent on technology to cover gaps in their own flying skills.

We had a longish thread on the Cirrus shute system and relying on the chute technology to cover pilots inabilities to make a successful forced landing in the event of engine failure.

The same aircraft has a panic button to recover the aircraft automatically if the pilot looses control.
We now have GPS and all manner of terrain depiction.
All these things are good as a compliment to strong piloting skills and procedures but not so if a pilot is relying on automated systems to counter a lack of skills.

What worried me with the chute is that pilots could be drawn into out of their depth situations through confidence of having the chute.
The same goes with advanced GPS systems.

I do know of pilots in such machines who no longer take or look at charts or even flight plan. Its just punch in and blindly go.
Do these excellent safety advancements add to piloting skills NO NO NO! They encourage pilots to loose those skills by over reliance on the systems as well as becoming shoddy in their airmanship.

As with the chute treated with respect and as an extra tool to the other tools available to them then these new advancements become truly safety advancements.

I have seen pilots here advocate flying on top by saying to just punch in the autopilot to climb through cloud. Great if you have the skills to handle anything thrown at you in cloud! not so great if you do not and the autopilot fails. Take my word for it i have had numerous autopilot failures of one kind or another.

Abused to the extent of getting lazy with basic flying skills or used to cover up deficiences in those skills and the pilot is enroute to waypoint called trouble.

Pace

[mad_jock]

That pretty much is my view as well Pace.

Also as well that practise is the only way you bed the skills in for periods when you don't use them.

Which is why I think its all very good teaching students to use a GPS but until they have the other skill sets to the level of "changing gear in a car" they have nothing to fall back on.

[peterh337]

I don't disagree with you Pace in absolute terms but might differ as to the extent to which you perhaps portray TAA (tech advanced aircraft) pilots as morons

I do know some who do stupid things but the vast majority are clued-up people who took the time to get clued-up on their systems (to the extent possible in the rather crappy UK private flying training environment) and they fly safely. Most are successful business/prof people who are not stupid to start with.

The accident reports do not support any special high rate of prangs of people in nice shiny planes. In the USA there has always been a fairly obvious level of such, but then the GA scene out there is a lot more affluent and their GA infrastructure supports a level of utility flying which we don't have in Europe.

Most accident reports that show clear pilot error followed by a death show a pilot flying something fairly basic, who made a series of stupid decisions, possibly never got the wx, and ended up doing an "impossible" flight. Or the usual loss of control in IMC, or stall/spin stuff.

Straight CFITs are very very rare, as are accidents in "classical IFR" i.e. takeoff, sid, enroute, star, approach. The last CFIT I recall reading about was a PPL night instructional flight where deliberately no GPS was used, they did some dodgy (hurried) navaid fixes, some dead reckoning, and flew into slowly rising ground, at a small angle so amazingly both survived.

So as I say I don't see a pattern of muppets sticking the key into their G1000 equipped plane, taking off without a plan and crashing etc. Or if they do, they don't seem to have any trouble.

The biggest problem is a lack of training on nontrivial aircraft systems in the PPL but due to massive industry resistance this will never be addressed until a) the present GA fleet is largely scrapped and b) the CAA gets FEs to require a demo of competence on everything installed (like the FAA does). 20 years?

Ultimately this discussion leads to a call for a "TAA type rating" and I would say be careful what you wish for because you might get it. It isn't an ICAO requirement, probably because ICAO is still in the 1970s and GA systems have become very powerful in the last 10-20 years. The 1990s gear I fly behind is better than what a 747 had 30 years ago (INS, auto throttle and autoland excepted). Concorde looks positively jurrasic. Current gear (G1000 etc) is way better, with LPV (when that comes, ahem) etc. In the USA, the insurers have de facto forced this (mandatory type training) but the UK lags behind. In the CAT business this is dealt with in the TR so somebody with the TR maybe can't hand fly too well but he should know what the knobs in the 737 do.

So I just can't get excited about TAA pilots doing crazy things.

[ShyTorque]

My thoughts about the correct use of GPS is that a plan should be made first, i.e. by drawing lines on the relevant chart/s. GPS should be subsequently used to make the route easier to fly. The GPS route should be checked against that plan. If there is any discrepancy, the flight must not go until it's resolved.

After all, it's by no means unknown for a "traditional" paper PLOG/flight plan to have errors on it, too, such as an incorrect track or distance written down, or a total time added up incorrectly.

One plan is used to cross check the other. I'm fortunate enough to have a moving map display, albeit a very basic one, which can usually be zoomed out to show the whole flight.. If the moving map track lines don't match the chart lines, that's an instant "stop" signal.

Once the route is in the GPS and checked, I often save it if required, for a later date. The "box" is subsequently highly unlikely to make an error in that plan.

[peterh337]

Yes, obviously.

[mad_jock]

So as I say I don't see a pattern of muppets sticking the key into their G1000 equipped plane, taking off without a plan and crashing

They might not be crashing but they may be busting airspace.

TR maybe can't hand fly too well but he should know what the knobs in the 737 do.

Not every aircraft has a servicable AP Peter, will admit the swept wing operators are more adverse to going without it compared to the turboprop pilots. Everyday in europe there must 100's of aircraft flying with U/S AP's.

You really don't have a clue what happens in commercial aircraft what we can operate with and without and how much hand flying goes on.

Some cabin crew would say the knobs fly it