AAIB Comment in Clued Up
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Felt I had to comment on some of the stuff that being peddled on here.
Peter, you must have read some of the AAIB's bulletins to be such an expert on them, in which case you will have forgotten that the AAIB regularly investigates all manner of incidents, including crashes, as you put it, but also many other incidents as well where not a scratch is put on anything.
This is not a personal attack on you but I cringe at some of your comments as you obviously have no idea of some of the methods of the AAIB, or the expertise and skill of its investigators, all of whom (the pilot ones) are current and experienced pilots with varied backgrounds.
This following quote from a US aviation site is probably close to what they are getting at:
On the subject - task fixation leads to disorientation and this applies to GPS more than anything else.
I fly heavy metal for a living (and regularly enter LAT/LONGs!) but when I go up in the club aircraft it is with a half-mill chart and the Mk1, the GPS may be switched on but I don't use it for simple VFR flying - prefer looking out of the window. If anything, knowing the background of some of the AAIB guys, they will be commenting on incidents which highlight the lack of situational awareness of some who yet simultaneously know their lat/long to fraction of a minute of arc.
Remember the AAIB gets involved only in crashes, and ask yourself how the over-use of a GPS can cause a crash.
This is not a personal attack on you but I cringe at some of your comments as you obviously have no idea of some of the methods of the AAIB, or the expertise and skill of its investigators, all of whom (the pilot ones) are current and experienced pilots with varied backgrounds.
This following quote from a US aviation site is probably close to what they are getting at:
I was climbing out of XXX; had switched from XXX tower frequency to YYY ATC to pick up flight following. In the climb out phase; while in communication with YYY ATC; my GPS crashed. While recycling my GPS; I inadvertently wandered. I took a wide climb out under an unplanned sector class B airspace; which a ceiling of 4;000; instead of 5;000. Moments later; ATC informed me I was climbing into class B airspace. I made an immediate descent and turn to the left. My GPS rebooted and I continued my flight. The lesson learned is how important it is to be ready with back up navigation. Also; since ATC is there to help; I should have asked for vectors.
I fly heavy metal for a living (and regularly enter LAT/LONGs!) but when I go up in the club aircraft it is with a half-mill chart and the Mk1, the GPS may be switched on but I don't use it for simple VFR flying - prefer looking out of the window. If anything, knowing the background of some of the AAIB guys, they will be commenting on incidents which highlight the lack of situational awareness of some who yet simultaneously know their lat/long to fraction of a minute of arc.
Last edited by overstress; 4th Jul 2012 at 00:21.
I think the quote above has little to do with GPS. The crucial bit is:
He could have been tracking a VOR or NDB when the receiver or ground station failed. Same result. No back-up plan(s). THAT is the real issue behind many incidents/accidents. Loss of situational awareness.
Today's GA terrain/airspace/weather/fuel/airport aware 2 & 3D navigation kit is superb. Far in advance of anything you'll find in a commercial airliner and in my experience, probably more reliable! You still have to have options for when the screen goes blank, though, whether you're straight back to DR or have a pocket GPS or lower grade stuff in the panel. ATC are there to help, plus if you've had multiple failures, D&D on 121.5 is available. Handheld radio, just in case? Cellphone and squawk? Etc.
As I pointed out a few pages ago, in the not-too-distant future, most conventional ground-based navaids will have been withdrawn from service and navigation/charting information will only be available in electronic format. Time to get with the program, as they say...
The lesson learned is how important it is to be ready with back up navigation. Also; since ATC is there to help; I should have asked for vectors.
Today's GA terrain/airspace/weather/fuel/airport aware 2 & 3D navigation kit is superb. Far in advance of anything you'll find in a commercial airliner and in my experience, probably more reliable! You still have to have options for when the screen goes blank, though, whether you're straight back to DR or have a pocket GPS or lower grade stuff in the panel. ATC are there to help, plus if you've had multiple failures, D&D on 121.5 is available. Handheld radio, just in case? Cellphone and squawk? Etc.
As I pointed out a few pages ago, in the not-too-distant future, most conventional ground-based navaids will have been withdrawn from service and navigation/charting information will only be available in electronic format. Time to get with the program, as they say...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen no evidence (from a body such as the CAA - or proposals to amend Statute) that paper based charts and information is going to disappear.
It's true that companies are moving towards paperless methods of disseminating information - however I think the burden for quite some time to come will be upon us as pilots having to print out for ourselves the paper copy that we need (to comply with the ANO) on the day.
It would (at present) be very hard to argue that a defence to an offence under an ANO was due to the electronic systems having failed and no paper back up was available
It's true that companies are moving towards paperless methods of disseminating information - however I think the burden for quite some time to come will be upon us as pilots having to print out for ourselves the paper copy that we need (to comply with the ANO) on the day.
It would (at present) be very hard to argue that a defence to an offence under an ANO was due to the electronic systems having failed and no paper back up was available
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right about the distraction, could have been any heads-in reason, but fiddling with the GPS cost him an infringement.
I'll stick with my map for VFR, thanks - but what do I know?
Have flown about 9000 hours with two FMC/FMGC and never (touch wood) had a double failure, nor on 1000 hours with twin INS, map has never failed in flight either although I have spilled my coffee once or twice.
I'll stick with my map for VFR, thanks - but what do I know?
Far in advance of anything you'll find in a commercial airliner and in my experience, probably more reliable!
Last edited by overstress; 4th Jul 2012 at 08:42.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology which reduces work load has to be good. We all know the pain of keeping numerous bulky and heavy aerads up to date hence being able to download updates and have all the data on a couple of I pads is a huge time and effort benefit.
What I think they maybe getting at with the GPS comment is twofold! Firstly that any technology has to be a positive addition to pilot skills not used to cover up a lack of piloting skills.
Secondly that technology can make for lazy pilots and lull pilots into forgetting or ignoring those skills ie do not put your eggs in one basket scenario. Use everything that is available and trust nothing.
Well that is how I would interpret the caution.
What I think they maybe getting at with the GPS comment is twofold! Firstly that any technology has to be a positive addition to pilot skills not used to cover up a lack of piloting skills.
Secondly that technology can make for lazy pilots and lull pilots into forgetting or ignoring those skills ie do not put your eggs in one basket scenario. Use everything that is available and trust nothing.
Well that is how I would interpret the caution.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GEP,
I agree that it is the responsibility of the PIC to carry charts, and if he/she relies on an electronic chart, that includes a suitable back-up since losing the chart in the middle of the flight is not acceptable.
But where do you take it from that the chart must be in paper form? How does the ANO imply this - perhaps in another section?
And if it relies on the interpretation of the word chart, is there any precedent?
I agree that it is the responsibility of the PIC to carry charts, and if he/she relies on an electronic chart, that includes a suitable back-up since losing the chart in the middle of the flight is not acceptable.
But where do you take it from that the chart must be in paper form? How does the ANO imply this - perhaps in another section?
And if it relies on the interpretation of the word chart, is there any precedent?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..., you must have read some of the AAIB's bulletins to be such an expert on them, in which case you will have forgotten that the AAIB regularly investigates all manner of incidents, including crashes, as you put it, but also many other incidents as well where not a scratch is put on anything.
I am not a compulsive reader of AAIB bulletins or safety progress reports, but do read a reasonable number, including the totality of the 2010 report. I can not remember any bulletin where over use of GPS featured as a material aspect of the report. Further, in the 2010 report I can not see a single recommendation related to over use of GPS.
With your greater familiarity with the material, I would be grateful for some links to the AAIB substance behind the original comment.
GE,
I am pretty sure you are both right and wrong on your paper chart comments.
Right, in that if a failure of your single source of navigation data (your electronic chart) resulted in an infringement - the CAA would certainly not say 'that's alright cause your laptop/iPad failed '. And they would seem to have a prima-facie that you did not have all necessary.... .
Wrong, in that you are not required to have a specific brand, source, or format of the necessary charts and information. So an upto date 530 and an iPad with digitised charts for the planned route would be all necessary charts, codes, data and would arguably be sufficiently resilient to be reasonably confident that you will have access to the information when required.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gent's - I agree, there is no formal definition of map or chart or the method of displaying it (be that on a screen or in paper format). However it does say it must be carried. Thats fine if its a stand alone system and you have made provisions in case it fails. The real issue here is the intergration with GPS and the potential for GPS to not work.
Equally consideration should be given to (the very unlikely) scenario where no electrical devices are working. To me the simple answer is a paper backup. In my own aircraft approach plates are stored in the database (which is frequently updated) however that does not stop me having paper copies and maps (which I print out before the flight) in my flight bag as a backup, in much the same way as I carry a torch for flight at night.
Equally consideration should be given to (the very unlikely) scenario where no electrical devices are working. To me the simple answer is a paper backup. In my own aircraft approach plates are stored in the database (which is frequently updated) however that does not stop me having paper copies and maps (which I print out before the flight) in my flight bag as a backup, in much the same way as I carry a torch for flight at night.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GEP, that sounds reasonable (the need for backup, that is), although paper backup for some things can be excesive. You have to carry charts for any diversion that might be expected. On an IFR flight to, say, Biggin-Berlin, that includes Southend, Manston, most Belgian IFR fields, Maasticht, several German ones... do you print all these?
Personally, I use paper charts for departure, arrival, and alternate; carry the electronic charts for the possible en-route diversion, and a paper airways chart (the last time I opened one was during the ATPL theory exam).
I still find flying an approach using a chart displayed on the MFD inferior to the chart on my kneeboard (EFB or paper) [other than SID and STAR, which in my mind are best flown with the route in the FMS and the map - not chart - on the MFD]
Personally, I use paper charts for departure, arrival, and alternate; carry the electronic charts for the possible en-route diversion, and a paper airways chart (the last time I opened one was during the ATPL theory exam).
I still find flying an approach using a chart displayed on the MFD inferior to the chart on my kneeboard (EFB or paper) [other than SID and STAR, which in my mind are best flown with the route in the FMS and the map - not chart - on the MFD]
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equally consideration should be given to (the very unlikely) scenario where no electrical devices are working.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I tend to print off paperback ups for the alternates on my flight plan. I do have some extras that I carry anyway (for example - Manston, Shawbury, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester) I know that in reality if I have failiure of the MFD then I can fly onto my destination, If it's more serious (such as MFD not working plus smoke) then it's the nearest suitable airfield and on the balance of probabilities will be vectored in. I also have paper airways charts in my flight case.
I tend to print off paperback ups for the alternates on my flight plan. I do have some extras that I carry anyway (for example - Manston, Shawbury, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester) I know that in reality if I have failiure of the MFD then I can fly onto my destination, If it's more serious (such as MFD not working plus smoke) then it's the nearest suitable airfield and on the balance of probabilities will be vectored in. I also have paper airways charts in my flight case.
most Belgian IFR fields
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm flynn, I am not here to do your background reading for you, I was merely pointing out to another poster that the AAIB do more than investigate crashes.
I can recommend reading their site more thoroughly as there is always something to be learned from each accident or major incident.
There have been recent fatal mid air collisions between light aircraft equipped with GPS. It is feasible that over-concentration on the display may have prevented an effective lookout. In VFR flying one's eyes should be mostly outside, GPS encourages the pilot to stare inside.
I can recommend reading their site more thoroughly as there is always something to be learned from each accident or major incident.
There have been recent fatal mid air collisions between light aircraft equipped with GPS. It is feasible that over-concentration on the display may have prevented an effective lookout. In VFR flying one's eyes should be mostly outside, GPS encourages the pilot to stare inside.
Last edited by overstress; 4th Jul 2012 at 09:59.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to drive this one into the ground even further but a law that required the carriage of paper charts would be meaningless unless it specified the exact type.
So................. which type?
For the UK you have
- CAA 250k
- CAA 500k
- Jepp 500k
- the new 1M (Transair - hey that one alone has got to be worth another 100GB of proon bandwidth; who is going to kick it off while I am away in the gym+yoga?)
- the French ones below show parts of the southern UK
- ONC/TPC charts
- Jepp airways charts (low level assumed)
- Aerad airways charts (unreadable)
For France you have
- IGN (various)
- SIA 1M
- Cartabossy 1M
- Jepp 500k
- the above CAA ones show parts of N France
- ONC/TPC charts
- Jepp airways charts (low level assumed)
- Aerad airways charts (unreadable)
Zee message should be obvious by now
Flying all-electronic has to be 100% legal, notwithstanding the countless recent banal press releases about the FAA etc "approving" the use of the Ipad in the cockpit. There is nothing to approve for private flight (Part 91 in N-reg speak).
Anybody flying all-electronic without a backup is going to get bitten in the bum one day In a VFR-Europe presentation I did recently I suggested people plan and fly with the printed paper charts; got some criticism for it but I am sticking with it. There is a lot going for it. But it's not a legal requirement (in Europe, as far as anybody knows).
I cannot see how a moving map GPS reduces SA. SA is all about knowing where you are in 3D relative to relevant airspace etc around you. A moving map delivers that on a plate - which is why so many old geezers (esp. in the flight training business) hate it; it takes away all the "precious old skills". The truth is that Columbus would have instantly traded half his crew for the crappiest old GPS
You mean the one with ~1000kt closing speeds over Brazil?
Yes that one would be blamed squarely on the superb accuracy of GPS (laterally) and good baro accuracy of RVSM (vertically) but the solution is to fly slightly to one side of the track - as I believe Virgin and BA do over Africa.
Also, it would not suprise me that 99% of pilots who died in mid-airs had milk for breakfast. Ergo.......
No it doesn't. That is flat wrong. You are flogging the same old prejudice. GPS delivers you SA on a plate so you do very little work to navigate, leaving you to look outside much more - for traffic, instead of looking out for that little lake with a roundabout next to it, or whatever. Frankly I don't think you are aware of anything made since about year 2000 because what you write just doesn't stack up alongside reality.
So................. which type?
For the UK you have
- CAA 250k
- CAA 500k
- Jepp 500k
- the new 1M (Transair - hey that one alone has got to be worth another 100GB of proon bandwidth; who is going to kick it off while I am away in the gym+yoga?)
- the French ones below show parts of the southern UK
- ONC/TPC charts
- Jepp airways charts (low level assumed)
- Aerad airways charts (unreadable)
For France you have
- IGN (various)
- SIA 1M
- Cartabossy 1M
- Jepp 500k
- the above CAA ones show parts of N France
- ONC/TPC charts
- Jepp airways charts (low level assumed)
- Aerad airways charts (unreadable)
Zee message should be obvious by now
Flying all-electronic has to be 100% legal, notwithstanding the countless recent banal press releases about the FAA etc "approving" the use of the Ipad in the cockpit. There is nothing to approve for private flight (Part 91 in N-reg speak).
Anybody flying all-electronic without a backup is going to get bitten in the bum one day
In a VFR-Europe presentation I did recently I suggested people plan and fly with the printed paper charts; got some criticism for it but I am sticking with it. There is a lot going for it. But it's not a legal requirement (in Europe, as far as anybody knows).I cannot see how a moving map GPS reduces SA. SA is all about knowing where you are in 3D relative to relevant airspace etc around you. A moving map delivers that on a plate - which is why so many old geezers (esp. in the flight training business) hate it; it takes away all the "precious old skills". The truth is that Columbus would have instantly traded half his crew for the crappiest old GPS
There have been recent fatal mid air collisions between light aircraft equipped with GPS.
Yes that one would be blamed squarely on the superb accuracy of GPS (laterally) and good baro accuracy of RVSM (vertically) but the solution is to fly slightly to one side of the track - as I believe Virgin and BA do over Africa.
Also, it would not suprise me that 99% of pilots who died in mid-airs had milk for breakfast. Ergo.......
It is feasible that over-concentration on the display may have prevented an effective lookout. In VFR flying one's eyes should be mostly outside, GPS encourages the pilot to stare inside.
Last edited by peterh337; 4th Jul 2012 at 10:13.
I'm guessing the ANO rule that requires a current chart to be carried, was originally drafted a looooong time before the current generation of sophisticated, hand-held GPS devices were even conceived. Like many rules, it simply hasn't kept up with the ever accelerating world of technology. No doubt there will be an amendment in the future, which will be obsolete before it hits the [metaphoric] press...
In the meantime, i don't see how, say, an iPad with SkyDemon could be more distracting than a 1/4 mill map supporting a cross country track crawl? The great thing about modern GPS is that a quick glance is all that is needed to confirm you're still on course
In the meantime, i don't see how, say, an iPad with SkyDemon could be more distracting than a 1/4 mill map supporting a cross country track crawl? The great thing about modern GPS is that a quick glance is all that is needed to confirm you're still on course
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing the ANO rule that requires a current chart to be carried
I am not aware of any case law regarding this, anyway. Is there any?
One hears of cases in Germany over various odd stuff (like pilots getting done for making incorrect radio calls).
ISTM that carrying a current chart means little anyway, because you buy them once a year but almost immediately updates start to appear on some CAA website which 99% of pilots have never heard of.
So, together with the ICAO-compliant aviation data promulgation system (the AIP which contains e.g. CAS outlines as lat/long and I believe overrides the printed chart no matter how current the latter is, the notam system, and any NATS/CAA/Eurocontrol website carrying updates) the prosecution can always show that you flew with out of date data. I bet 100% of pilots fly with out of date data in some way - including 100% of BA crew departing LHR today.
A good lawyer would make a mockery of the CAA in a criminal court if they tried to nail you on some technicality to do with the "latest chart" because their is no "latest chart".
The only way to get the "latest chart" or "current chart" is
1 - buy the current chart
2 - go to the CAA amendments website and mark up any changes against 1.
3 - check all CAS etc coordinates in the AIP against 2. and mark up any discrepancies onto the chart
4 - get the notams and do the same on 3.
You would never get off the ground...
An approximation to the above is to fly with an AIRAC-updated electronic product (Jepp Flitedeck, Skydemon, PocketFMS, etc) but that only gets you 28 day updates which may not be good enough (see below).
Practically everybody just flies with the chart, and usually it will be the current one. Usually that is good enough, but not always: e.g. the change in transition altitude to 6000ft changed the FL055 LTMA to 5500ft, which is bad news if you fly at FL054 with a QNH of 1036 and didn't get around buying the new chart for a couple of weeks (how do I know that?)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify yes have two I pads but do use trip kits ie printed charts for departure destination and alternatives as well as using conventional enroute charts keeping the I pads for any reason that you are forced to land enroute etc.
That works pretty well!
Pace
That works pretty well!
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]
If you are using electronic charts, printing charts is a bit of an effort, though, because you have to cut the paper, sort them properly, and put them into a folder... and it is still 100 pages or so, unless you start to waste time by picking the charts you might actually need. I rather take an EFB, thank you very much.
most Belgian IFR fields[\quote]As we have just six of them (not counting the military) one could change "most" to "all". And the hardship would be quite bearable - literally!
If you are using electronic charts, printing charts is a bit of an effort, though, because you have to cut the paper, sort them properly, and put them into a folder... and it is still 100 pages or so, unless you start to waste time by picking the charts you might actually need. I rather take an EFB, thank you very much.
I have seen no evidence (from a body such as the CAA - or proposals to amend Statute) that paper based charts and information is going to disappear.
It's true that companies are moving towards paperless methods of disseminating information - however I think the burden for quite some time to come will be upon us as pilots having to print out for ourselves the paper copy that we need (to comply with the ANO) on the day.
It would (at present) be very hard to argue that a defence to an offence under an ANO was due to the electronic systems having failed and no paper back up was available
Have flown about 9000 hours with two FMC/FMGC and never (touch wood) had a double failure, nor on 1000 hours with twin INS, map has never failed in flight either although I have spilled my coffee once or twice.
