AAIB Comment in Clued Up

[Pace]

There might be scope for a bit of research on how people acquire situational awareness and how the use, or not, of technology affects that. As an example, I suspect many PPL's take a very long time to gain awareness of the position of other traffic from listening to radio exchanges. I know I did.

There was an RAF study carried out on fast jet pilots. Basically we all have different minds best described as a computer. Some computers have high powered Graphic cards with a lot of onboard memory for dealing with fast high graphic games others do not have fast Graphic cards but may have more storage ability in the computer.
Like the computer load the system too much and it falters and stalls while the fast computer can take a lot more visual information coming in.
How does the pilot with a low powered visual card improve? He has to make sure he has more information stored in the main memory banks freeing up the Graphic Card to deal with purely visual information.
The pilot with the fast Graphic card can work that card harder with loads of visual information.
its how we are put together do you have a recollective or visual brain?
You would never make some pilots into fast jet pilots and you wont make some fast jet pilots into brain of britain but you can train yourself to do better in either area.

There are tests which can be carried out to see how much visual information your brain can take in and there is a vast difference between people.
I am sure we have all experienced driving a car and being deep in thought about something on your mind and then realising you have driven several miles and do not remember one corner you have driven through? 2 parts of your mind running different functions.
Your Graphics card takes over driving the car while your thoughts are deep in the memory banks of your brain.

Pace

[peterh337]

To say that modern GPS equipment has lower failure rates means that you firstly need to define "modern" and whether you mean panel mounted or portable GPS. ......

Let me give you my stats, which speak for themselves. From memory of these extremely rare events....

2004 - all three GPSs lost for ~1-3 mins, when flying down the middle of the Adriatic at ~1000ft. Solution: continue the current heading.

2006 - KLN94 lost its constellation data (apparently) at startup at Padova (Italy) and did not recover until I was halfway across the Alps, so say 30 mins. Other units were fine. Solution: none was required but anyway I asked ATC for a VOR route, which lifted the MEA from FL140 to FL160, so no issue.

Total airborne time on this aircraft is ~1100hrs over 10 years.

Anecdotally there is loads of evidence of portable and panel mounted units failing for lots of reasons but I've never heard any statistics

That is true (about the anecdotal reports) but it seems that a lot of people are

- using crappy old units (like MJ above, though his one was hardly cheap, and he gets away with it because it is AOC flying on an IFR clearance so CAS doesn't matter, and there is little terrain above the N Sea)

- using handhelds with integral aerials in metal cockpits, resulting in marginal reception (I can show you anytime how crap the GPS in my Ipad2 is when flying; only an external XGPS150 bluetooth unit makes it work properly)

- using GPSs which may be modern but they have never opened the user manual (which is not suprising since the unit pretty well works straight out of the box as a moving map with obvious map-zoom controls) and one day they decide to learn the other functionality when up in the air

A GPS is a fantastic tool for the job. It has totally revolutionised navigation, to the extent that one can go all over the place and have totally uneventful flights, whereas previously one would be working one's bollox off starting/stopping/winding up the stopwatch and looking for terrain features to match those expected at around the waypoint time - all while trying to fly an accurate heading which is itself variously fictional because your wind corrected plog is based on forecast wind, and anyway the whole edifice hangs on selecting waypoints cunningly for a lack of ambiguity, which is sometimes trivial and sometimes not...

I have a workshop at home, with a 3 axis turret mill, with a DRO and ball guides (0.005mm) on all 3 axes. I want to make something of a funny shape. If I worked for the AAIB, seemingly, I would file it out by hand

I have no issue with somebody pretending to be like their grandfather. It's easy. Go to your pilot shop, buy a £500 leather jacket, the leather cap, goggles, even a jump suit. Run your Jag over your map a few times so it looks well creased (and over the jacket too). Read the Flypast magazine. I have absolutely no issue with that. Traditional aviation is absolutely fine. Like plane spotters, it has its place. WW2 pilots even sometimes managed to find Berlin from the UK (unsuprisingly most couldn't though; only the really good ones could so they got them to fly ahead). But don't tell me it is the best way to navigate to places in which you don't know the sheep by their first names, because it isn't. It's a crap error-prone high-workload way to do it, and the "establishment position" is without doubt largely responsible for why most new PPL holders are totally sh*t scared of flying further than down the coast, and chuck away the £10k they paid for that piece of paper without ever really using it.

There was an RAF study carried out on fast jet pilots.

When I applied to the RAF (don't laugh; they wouldn't have me because of my presumed KGB connections; in fact even an engineering apprenticeship was totally out and I reckon they sent my application straight to MI6 without even answering it) in 1973, they has literally 100 applicants for every flying position. They can pick and choose. I am not suprised their jet pilots are very good.

But I also think the RAF is jolly lucky WW3 never broke out, because for decades the Russians only needed to invade in IMC and have some improvised means of radio nav

[flybymike]

I have no issue with somebody pretending to be like their grandfather. It's easy. Go to your pilot shop, buy a £500 leather jacket, the leather cap, goggles, even a jump suit. Run your Jag over your map a few times so it looks well creased (and over the jacket too). Read the Flypast magazine. I have absolutely no issue with that. Traditional aviation is absolutely fine. Like plane spotters, it has its place. WW2 pilots even sometimes managed to find Berlin from the UK (unsuprisingly most couldn't though; only the really good ones could so they got them to fly ahead). But don't tell me it is the best way to navigate to places in which you don't know the sheep by their first names, because it isn't. It's a crap error-prone high-workload way to do it, and the "establishment position" is without doubt largely responsible for why most new PPL holders are totally sh*t scared of flying further than down the coast, and chuck away the £10k they paid for that piece of paper without ever really using it.

This has to be Peter at his most amusingly irascible and finest. These Russki spies can be most entertaining.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by goldeneaglepilot

Peter,

I dont think its about the need for GPS - its about the practicalities of VFR pilots being reliant upon it and not being completly aware of whats going on around them. Garmin have had huge issues in the states following a mid air due to exactly this.

A good place to look at info on this is:

FindACase™ | American Winds Flight Academy v. Garmin International

That would seem to be a bad place to look for confirmation or Garmin having a huge issue - - - As the link shows a summary judgement in Garmin's favour and that the plaintiff's claims were 'rubbish'.

[Anonystude]

This has to be Peter at his most amusingly irascible and finest. These Russki spies can be most entertaining.

And would you care to engage with the content, rather than a weak ad hominem? I happen to agree with him entirely...

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by riverrock83

To say that modern GPS equipment has lower failure rates means that you firstly need to define "modern" and whether you mean panel mounted or portable GPS.

A very important comment.

I suspect a lot of the 'Pro' camp have a view that a GPS is

• TSOed
• Panel Mounted
• Powered from the main aircraft power system
• Connected to an external antenna
• Updated monthly with commercially provided data
• Has a moving map display of airspace

and a lot of the 'Con' camp have a view that a GPS is

• Handheld
• Battery Powered
• Internal antenna only
• Has no/old/limited navigation database
• A general purpose unit
• May be interfaced to shareware moving map programs

Ones view of reliability and impact on situational awareness would be substantially different depending on which piece of equipment one had in mind when someone says GPS.

Re Mad Jocks picture, there have been some very substantial errors made (at least one with c. 100 fatalities) due to the lack of real situational awareness using devices as pictured. It is very easy to mis-key an identifier and navigate precisely to the wrong point (through some terrain for example)

[cumulusrider]

Slightly off topic. A glider pilot landed safetly in a field near Northampton , about 60 miles from base and phoned in at about 5pm. His crew hitched up the trailer told us he had the Lat and long, and departed. About 3 1/2 hrs later we phoned the crew to find out if he had found the pilot. He said his GPS said he was about 5 miles away. An hour later when it was dark we phoned him again. He still he hadnt found the pilot but could see a signpost to Diss.
A few moments of confusion followed before we realised that he must have entered the coordinates as degrees E instead of W and was 60 miles off course.
The pilot slept in his glider and the crew slept in the car. They met up eventually at 7.30am the next morning

[peterh337]

That doesn't suprise me at all.

Over the years I have calibrated various scanned maps for Oziexplorer, and this involves entering a number of coordinate sets. The program then displays a lat/long grid which (if you have done it right) aligns well with the grid printed on the map itself.

On almost every map I do, I get at least one point wrong.... Would I take more care if flying with it, and if there was no easy way of checking the calibration? Probably yes, but am I actually less likely to make a mistake? No. When commercial pilots are entering lat/long values, the other pilot is supposed to be checking every digit. Yeah, right, this is 100% safe, too

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.

[FullWings]

I'm still having difficulty with the assertion that having a GPS somehow makes things worse than not having one? Using anything remotely modern is like having the best navigator in the world sitting next to you and putting his finger on the map saying "we're here and going in this direction; oh, and watch out for the airspace over there".

Given the price of something like Skydemon on an iPad, compared with the hourly cost of even the lightest of light aircraft, there isn't really much excuse for not having the latest tech. Old Garmins from the nineties just don't cut it any more.

We are fast approaching the time where there won't be any NDBs or VORs. AFAIK the major charting companies like Jeppesen are planning to go all electronic in the very near future: no more paper charts, even if you want them.

I totally agree with Peter that GPS has initiated a huge positive change in the way we fly. No longer do we need to wrestle with maps, congregate like flies around ground-based navaids and take fright when we mistake Little Snoring for Little Gransden. There's more capacity for looking out, checking the aircraft state and (gasp!) actually having fun!

Slightly off topic, as per the last post but one:

I've been soaring for a long time and you would not believe the crap we had to go through to get our gliding badges and prove what we had done in competitions. It started with ground observers at every turning point, then graduated to barographs (to prove you hadn't landed and taken off again) and cameras (to prove you been to wherever you were meant to go). The aerobatics and near accidents that went on when 50+ gliders, all coming from slightly different directions, tried to take pictures of somewhere they'd never been to before, as close to vertically overhead as they could make it... Blimey, I don't know how I survived.

Now, it's secure GPS data-loggers integrated with moving maps, FLARM (TCAS for gliders), ADS-B, you name it. It's all about soaring skill now rather than photography, compass navigation, map reading, etc. Not that these aren't skilled endeavours in their own right but they are peripheral to the sport itself and not, IMHO, an integral part of it. Same goes for power flying.

[mad_jock]

If somebody is doing that, they are doing something very weird

Not if your flying transatlantic track system where the routes are changing every day.

You do have some awfully wierd ideas about how commercial pilots work Peter.

[peterh337]

Not if your flying transatlantic track system where the routes are changing every day.

and the name of this forum is?

[mad_jock]

Private I was just commenting on your comment that Commercial pilots build routes using lat/long's which is complete and utter bollocks apart from certain situations one of which being the the North atlantic track system.

As I said you have some awfully weird ideas about what commercial pilots do, the equipment we use, and they way we do things.

Yes GPS is a tool as Genghis has pointed out but its a tool in suite of tools and the lack of it is no great hardship. Most pilots wouldn't even have a clue it wasn't working for inter europe trips.

[Jan Olieslagers]

If somebody is doing that, they are doing something very weird.

And I will gladly accept I am doing weird things, as many people (and I have no reason to doubt their wisdom) consider me a weird person - but all of my GPS navigation has been based on coordinates I typed into spreadsheet software by hand, or, in rare cases, found on the Internet (basulm.fr is one such source)

OTOH it is of course clean daft to depart on a route, GPS or not, whether flying or driving or snorkeling or whatever, without having checked it against every possible reference. But I have at least as much mistrust/reserve/caution against commercially bought stuff as against my own typing.

Even the official VFR charts for my own country, published by our famous National Geographic Institute, have a strong tradition of containing at least one error - I feel slightly uncomfortable for not having located any in this year's edition, as yet.

[peterh337]

but all of my GPS navigation has been based on coordinates I typed into spreadsheet software by hand, or, in rare cases, found on the Internet (basulm.fr is one such source)

I have no issue with you doing that in the privacy of your cockpit but I wouldn't recommend it to anybody else

[Jan Olieslagers]

The typing is actually done at home. More comfortable, and more resources for the absolutely essential verification.

[mad_jock]

mm_flynn have you got some links please?

Its not to argue about it, its so I can use them as case studys.

I don't doud't there have been at some point. I would reckon though there have been just as many with all the bells and whistles. On european machines we have EGWPS which gives some protection as long as the crew listens to it.

The fact is though that installation is about $10k and only requires one update subscription to be BRNAV compliant. The Garmin 530 option is two units two subscriptions and a mod to get the radio stacks changed and most planes just don't have room to shoe horn the units into the instrument panel where they can be used and seen without a major rework. I would imagine its even more of issue with rotary.

[ShyTorque]

A few moments of confusion followed before we realised that he must have entered the coordinates as degrees E instead of W and was 60 miles off course.

But this was a human error, not a GPS error. Hopefully the glider pilot learned about "gross error" checks from that episode. Rubbish in = rubbish out.

If anyone glibly follows a GPS (or any other form of aviation calculation) without checking that the plan looks perfectly sensible, then it's not at all surprising if he/she gets lost at some time.

[ShyTorque]

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.

[mad_jock]

I can see rotary needing many more none defined waypoints by there very nature.

Fixed wing though its usually Nav aid/bearing/range that we use not lat/long for making centerfixes and the like.

[peterh337]

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.

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.