Do I Need a GPS?
 

Okay here is the deal.

I am shortly about to complete my 60th hour. (For insurance purposes at my club I cannot fly solo until I have 60 hours). So I currently fly with an instructor and basically try to perfect my skills (and I must say I’m thoroughly enjoying the whole experience!).

My instructor simply sits there and offers bits and pieces of advice and reinforces what I’ve already learned.

However once I pass the magical 60 hour mark, I will be released to the skies once more on my own to explore the beautiful UK. This is coming to the crux of my question. Once I don't have an instructor with me, I will be relying on my own knowledge of the local area. Now I don't have a problem with my navigation, in fact I quite enjoy the challenge.

My weakness lies in identifying my current position in relation to an airfield , a vrp or a town. As I’m quite new to the local area (I gained my ppl at the other end of the country) when approaching a matz or an airfield, giving my rough position (which I know they don't expect to be perfect) ends up with me doing a lot of head down working out on my map.

Also to be honest I've always been against getting a GPS, they are expensive and most experienced pilots (from what I gather) tend to think they make you lazy and erode your navigation skills. But now I'm wondering if I should perhaps purchase a simple unit, which will make giving position reports and estimated times a bit easier and could also be a useful backup to check my navigation. Especially in these first 10 or 20 hours when I’m solo again and I imagine my workload will be quite high.

I am currently flying a rental aircraft (C150) so if I did purchase a GPS, where would I fit an aerial? Is it worth doing? Which one would you recommend (bearing in mind I won’t need it to be too flash as it would really only be a back up for me to double check I am where I think I am).

All opinions welcome…

It sounds to me as if you need to get a bit of solo navigation practice before even thinking about a GPS. If I were you, I'd only consider a GPS once I was fully confident in my ability to navigate by map and compass. Once you have these skills to a reasonable standard, a GPS can make life easier. But if you go staright to GPS before being fully confident at basic nav, you may never achieve good basic nav skills and that will be a major hole in your skills as a pilot.

It really is true that a GPS should only ever be an aid to navigation, not the primary means.

Once you start flying around on your own, it probably won't take long to aquire these skills.

SSD

You obviously have some navigation skills if you have your ppl. You say you're not worried about your navigation as such, but have difficulty in pin pointing your position on a very local basis.

I think we all have problems locating and identifing small airfields and vrp's that we haven't been to before, so don't be too concerned about that.

Personally I recently got a gps unit, and program my route into it, turn it on when i go flying, and then put it aside, and proceed with my plog and map. Like you I enjoy the challenge of navigation.

However the time comes when I expect to be over a town, and all that I'm over is a small collection of buildings. I believe I'm over the correct place, and continue to the next point but at the same time thinking what if that was the wrong town, then where would I be now? A quick glance at the GPS would confirm if I'd made the correct assumption, and put my mind at ease and reduce the mental calculations. I've found that it has not improved my navigation, as there was nothing wrong with it, but it has improved my confidence in my navigation. It's great to be able to check it, if you are in doubt, but I wouldn't follow the little line if I was you. You'll only lose your confidence in your navigaton.

As for an aerial, you can buy ones that stick to the window with a suction pad. I have only used my gps for a small number of flights, but haven't had a problem with losing the signal once this aerial is connected.


Hope that helps.

dp

I think that the advice offered by SSD and Dublinpilot is very sensible. GPS is something which you could integrate into your navigational armoury once you are confident with your deduced reckoning skills which, as you rightly point out, are very satisfying to use (it's always rewarding to look at your watch and say "the airfield should be just over...there" and it is).

After a few years of flying around without any GPS, the aircraft which I currently fly is fitted with a fairly posh GPS which has many features I have not, so far, spent the time to learn about. I switch on the moving map display and glance at it from time to time as a back up/error check, but otherwise don't really use it. I appreciate that there are many positive features of GPS for use in visual navigation and fuel management, which can help with workload and accuracy and enhance safety, and not every pilot using a GPS fits the head-down-press-on-regardless-why-do-I-need-windows stereotype, but perhaps if you get into GPS too early on in your PPL flying there's a risk of unwittingly turning into one of of those.

The question revolves around whether or not the GPS is an aid or a crutch. If an aid then that presupposes that you can manage effectively without it. That in turn requires some amount of experience & practice to improve and gain confidence in your skills.

Do I need a GPS?
 

Navigation is pretty easy in my area, given the islands, mountains, etc. but I'd hate to navigate using just charts on the prairies (Saskatchewan, Iowa) where one farm field looks like another.

Being skilled also means using all tools at hand. Purists may demand dead reckoning but they probably get lost a lot. These days with security so tight, wouldn't it be a better idea to really know where you are.

I've been using a handheld GPS for ten years. I mainly use it as a secondary for IFR flying. Wouldn't want to be without it. Got mine wired in to the bus bar in my a/c so I don't have to feed it batteries. Antenna is mounted on the glareshield. A few wires but tie down straps make the situation much tidier.

My first unit was a Garmin 95. Got pretty familiar with it and actually gave a few seminars on it's use at my flying club. I've got the 195 now and it's all one really needs. The best feature is the HSI. All the manufacturers make good units, though, so see if you can look at the various ones at an aviation show. Once you learn one manufacturer's protocol, you can slide into any brand with ease.

I've been most successful with Tropic Aero in Fort Lauderdale and GPS World in the Chicago area. See Trade-A-Plane.

The first time the weather goes south, it's bumpy, and you have that uncomfortable feeling you might need a place to land now....and you don't know where you are, you'll wish you had one. Spend the money!

Fred

GrassStrip

You asked for opinions, so... :O

The vast majority of fresh PPLs, about 90-95%, chuck it in before their first renewal, and most do so with only 10-20 hours post-PPL. It is highly likely that you will be one of those. If you want to continue flying, then (assuming you've got the money) you need to minimise your workload and minimise your airspace busts to maximise your enjoyment.

Visual nav is indeed pretty hard, until so you have so many hours you can fly with your eyes shut (well almost). And even then it is often very hard to POSITIVELY identify a piece of forest or a lake among many others which look just the same. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

There appear to be two main sorts of private pilots:

Group A - These often got their license many years ago, fly only locally or to places they've been to many times, fly only on nice days. Not really interested in actually going somewhere for a purpose (other than a beer, on a nice day). These usually dislike GPS, often intensely. They don't need one because of the flying they do and/or because they know every shed under the routes they regularly fly. Occassionally they venture into bad weather, get lost, bring down half the D&D services, and sometimes they get squeezed between clouds and hills... They are frequently "uncertain of position" - the officially approved name for being lost.

Group B - These want to go to new and interesting places. They progress to instrument flying (you have to to actually go anywhere for real in the UK) and they use radio nav (VOR/DME) and GPS all together. These are the minority but they clock up the most hours, and very very rarely get lost.

If you go to one of the CAA safety seminars, it will be painfully obvious after about 10 mins which group the material is aimed at. Actually the last CAA man told me so...

GPS is perfectly OK for primary navigation. It is far more accurate, reliable and resistant to gross errors than anything else (including visual nav). You always need a backup of course, and visual nav is your backup in VMC. You use the TWO TOGETHER.

There are some clowns who reportedly use a GPS solely without planning the flight so they have no backup. They give GPS a bad name. But you've got to remember that if you fly into a hill and die and you used visual nav, that's officially permitted. If you flew a perfectly straight line into the same hill because you were tracking a GPS, that's not officially permitted and will be used for years afterwards as an example of how evil GPS is :O

However if you really think that a GPS costs too much then you are unlikely to ever acquire enough currency for any of this to matter. When I used to self fly hire the usual school junk, with decrepit avionics, the first things I bought were a GPS and a decent headset.

The important thing is that with regard to position, the GPS does not tell you anything you don't know already.......especially when using the moving map.....the only diference is that the position where the GPS thinks it is can be a little clearer becuase very few towns in Europe have their name laid out beside them.

Also even if the GPS tells you where you are know, you still have to navigate from there to where you want to go.

So by all means get a GPS but I would not let the GPS become the Captain of my aircraft!!! ;)

As for local area navigation........that is usually the hardest of all because you are operating in a relatively confined area and are trying to navigate as accurately as possible often ad-hoc and with little time available for correction.....................Remember three rules;

1. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate
2. Keep ahead of the aircraft even if this means stopping progress for a while to get things together -orbit, hold, whatever.
3. Use the big picture. I once declared to my instructor that I was lost......he simply turned round and said that I could not be lost as I had not left the country so I should start there and work down from that.......today, I see many pilots fretting over what the village passing under the nose is when 1 O'Clock at 3nm is a massive town with two motorways!!

Until you are familiar with your local area....work out some "standard Arrival/Departure routes" that will help you get to and from the airfield. Also measure how far a certain feature on that route is from the airfield and use that feature to trigger the joining call because you already know the distance and direction.

Finally,

The most likely way of getting lost is not paying enough attention to heading and time.

For say a C150, the most you will ever drift is 2/3 or so of the windspeed at height in degrees. So if you make absolutely no correction for a 30Kt wind, you will drift by a maximum of 20degrees. That is 20nm off track in 60nm..........but it is only 5nm off in 15nm...............so provided that you check your position every 10 minutes, you will never be more that 5nm off track unless there is a crosswind of more than 30Kt....................5nm isn't that far off.....and that's after 10 minutes.............if you make no correction for wind but check your position every 5 minutes, you will never be more than 2.5nm off track............Now do you really need a GPS?

Having said all that, a GPS can be a great tool for backing up ETAs and suchlike for ATS especially when they ask for an ETA miles down the road.

Regards,

DFC

I0540, your division of the PPL world into two groups seems a little rigid, especially as your group A appears to be shorthand for "all those ppls whose interests in flying are not the same as my own" (and who are, by implication, therefore clueless numpties). It is possible with a little thought to travel to interesting places without instrument qualifications or a GPS. I have somehow blundered my way to tiny airfields in the middle of nowhere in featureless parts of France using DR and/or VOR/DME navigation (but mainly DR), but I suppose I was just lucky, and probably ought to turn myself in to the nearest available CAA rep as a menace to aviation.

Instrument flying, and doing lots of touring in kitted-up machines, are great aspects of our hobby, but they aren't for everyone, and GrassStrip may not yet have decided which variant(s) of GA flying he or she is most interested in. I like travelling to interesting places, but am mainly interested in exploring the handling of aeroplanes, so I do a lot of local flights during which I look upwards in order to see the ground, or try out different variants of cranky old aeroplane. I haven't yet ruled out getting an IMC, for all of the good reasons often discussed here, but know that I have no interest in doing for fun, on my own and for nothing what most instrument pilots do in pairs and for money. I'm not knocking anyone who wants to do that, hoorah for choice, but which of your classes does this put me into?


PS: is visual navigation really that hard, if you've been taught it properly? I'm not saying that it doesn't require careful planning and concentration, but if you fly from point A on accurate heading X at accurate speed Y for accurately timed minutes Z, checking for errors and drift as you go, then you will, repeat will be at desired point B. If you're planning a trip over the Sahara, prudence dictates the use of all available aids, but in the UK at least it is usually possible to choose as turning points features that will have sufficient lead-ins or confirmatory features to ensure correct identification, and selecting such features is part of intelligent route planning.

One of the great things about flying in general is that it's something you can, if you choose, at least sometimes do all by yourself, entirely free of outside agencies and influences. Whether travelling on foot in the mountains, under sail on the ocean, or on wings in the air, figuring out where you are using traditional skills which emphasise planning and self reliance is in my opinion simply more fun than being told where you are by a piece of space furniture whizzing around the planet. If you've got the GPS in your pocket in case you get into trouble, that's great, but it can also be great if it turns out that you don't need it.

GrassStrip, I agree with dublinpilot: "I think we all have problems locating and identifing small airfields and vrp's that we haven't been to before, so don't be too concerned about that. "

I don't like the idea of you constantly referring to a GPS to make position reports etc. But the idea of purchasing a small, relatively cheap unit to use as a backup for keeping track of your DTG, etc., makes sense.

I don't own a GPS myself, but will probably purchase one soon, as my wife is uncomfortable going x-country without one. :(

Dont bother, so may people, who wont admit it, become dependent on them. Learn and practice the old skills and you will become so much better and so much more confident.
I once watched a PPL tootle off to the west on a cross country only to return 15 minutes later. I asked what the problem was and he said his GPS had failed. I didnt know whether to laugh or cry !!

I tend to use Radio nav (VOR / NDB etc), backed up by visual nav (if able), backed up by GPS....I think everyone who wants to go somewhere should have one onboard an aircraft, if for nothing else, peace of mind. You could consider it a bit of safety equipment.

As for position reports, they're perfect for that. When London info request "whats your estimate for ORTAC" you can look at the screen and read off an exact figure.

The important thing is not to rely on any one system 100% (what if the vis becomes crap, what if the VOR receiver dies, what if the GPS batteries go flat etc.), but to use every available system to compliment the others.....

Rgds
EA

10540 - Oh dear. I don't fit into either of your categories - and neither do most pilots I know.

SSD:)

FNG

I was hoping my comments would be taken partially tongue in cheek :O

if you fly from point A on accurate heading X at accurate speed Y for accurately timed minutes Z, checking for errors and drift as you go

Accurate heading needs an accurate wind forecast. Very hard to fly accurately in turbulence especially in certain aircraft types. Doing so for extended periods can be extremely tiring. Checking for errors needs recognisable features down below - trivial sometimes (e.g. in sight of the coast), very hard at other times.

But I appreciate this is an interminable discussion, because one CAN fly anywhere using purely visual nav - if one is good enough at both aircraft control (so enough of your brain is left over for other stuff) and terrain recognition.

But both these skills are lacking in fresh pilots. I suspect that anyone with enough IQ to pass the PPL exams will be aware of their limitations and, maybe just perhaps, this is a factor in why most people pack it in so quickly. There are many places in UK airspace where you really have to know where you are. Some French airspace (e.g. near LFBZ) is even more complicated due to bits of military areas.

I know GPS cannot be brought into the 45-hour PPL which is at best only barely adequate now. For as long as this is the case, whether everyone should be told to fly "WW1-style" or whether the flying scene should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, will remain an interminable discussion. Until it is too late.

Don't worry IO540, I had assumed as much, and my response was intended to be partially likewise, whilst, like your post, trying to make a serious point as well. The internet is of course famously un-nuanced. I'm not really a techno-fearing luddite (well, just a bit), just as I know that you're not really a "me, I'm right ace at flying, me, cos I've got all the badges and toys" merchant. Anyway, I am now off for this season's first session of sliding down mountains (note to self: this season I really MUST get checked out at Courchevel), so have a good weekend you lot.

I didn't know it was as bad as that, though I'll take your word for it.

Clearly if so many people drop out after making it all the way through to their PPL, there is something seriously wrong with private aviation. :sad:

IO540,

With regard to accurate flying, and to recognising terrain, you said:I agree, to a certain extent. But how are new pilots supposed to gain these skills, if not by using them?

I have never used a GPS in anger. I have one in my aircraft, I very rarely use it, especially not in moving map mode. In VFR conditions, I'd much rather practice flying accurately and recognising terrain. After 300-ish hours, I'm starting to get better at it, but I still make mistakes. Not bad enough mistakes to get me into trouble, but enough that I know I need more practice. Having the GPS is a nice safety feature, but I would never contemplate cancelling a trip because of a lack of VFR.

My advice to GrassStrip would be: if you have money to spare, it would be better spent on more flying than it would on a GPS. Especially at this stage in your flying career.

FFF
-------------

I have used a moving map GPS pretty much since I started flying. We commonly hear the CAA and others telling us they cannot be relied upon and there are plenty of reasons why this might be so. However my GPS has never failed. To put that in perspective that is in some five or so years, getting on for 1,000 hours, during which one VOR has packed up, one DI has become unreliable, box 1 has failed a few times, and the transponder has produced spurious and unexplained readings. The avionics I refer to are all IFR “approved” panel mounted items, the GPS is not panel mounted, not “approved” but is connected to “mains” power and a good external aerial. For me that says a lot about reliability. I know for sure when flying an NDB in earnest I would far rather fly the “GPS procedure” and monitor the needle than vica versa.

OK so with a few hours under your belt and some instrument experience when the GPS fails it is back to the needles and the mark one eyeball which does very nicely. Thank goodness we have those skills. Flying VMC I think you would be stupid not backing up the GPS with the map on the knee, and in IMC not cross checking the needles against the GPS (or of course the other way around).

Now GrassStrip tells us he is relatively inexperienced and has problems identifying VRPs, towns and airfields. In my view that is hardly surprising – we all did. His skills to will improve by dint of effort, or by doing an instrument rating but it will take time. In that time he may get lost or he may stray into controlled airspace, neither a pleasant experience. If he does, he may decide to give up flying – what a shame.

However if he uses a GPS while it is working it will re-enforce his navigation skills as long as he supports the GPS by verifying the ground against the map, and he will become a better navigator far more quickly, so that when it fails it becomes a minor inconvenience.

So what are the pitfalls?

Don’t become over reliant on the GPS. Get into the habit very early on of verifying “features” shown on the GPS with those actually on the ground. If they don’t correlate do something about it!

Be very, very careful entering a course on the GPS – check and recheck the course to steer between waypoints with what you would expect on the map.

Know your GPS thoroughly – learning how to change views or routes etc., is not something to learn in the cockpit – it should be second nature. Anyway time on the ground is free!

Have an escape plan in mind on each leg! For example you may find yourself using the GPS to accurately fly close to an area of controlled air space which you know you mustn’t infringe to get to your destination. OK the GPS packs up. Abort the track you were following unless you are certain of you navigational skills, know the direction in which to turn to take you safely away from controlled airspace and know a track you can follow to get you to an alternate destination if that is what is called for. OK you get lost along the new route, so call the D and D cell, you are truly temporarily uncertain of your position, they will help you out.

Don’t bother with a simple GPS that only gives you a heading or track information. That presents less benefit and far more risk that following the needles, you have got nothing to cross check the GPS against other than your line on the map. Instead, ensure the GPS has a good moving map which provides a wonderful means of relating the GPS information to the map on your knee to the “map” on the ground. The difference between the two is only a few hundred pounds these days and the less experienced you are the better that money is spent!

Now there are those that would say the only way to learn to navigate is the map, the mark 1 and a pencil – some like the challenge, some like to make navigation hard work, and for some this works. However, it seems to me there is much to suggest that in learning any new skill re-enforcement is vital. Being able to re-enforce your map, mark 1 and pencil with the information shown on the GPS provides that re-enforcement – try turning off the GPS every so often – I think you will be surprised how well you do and how much more confident you have become.

Good luck!

Some good advice here. GPS is excellent if used wisely.

If you rely on your unapproved GPS, and get into "difficulties", you can be sure that will be the moment the GPS decides not to work.

There's a sadistic but wise CAA examiner round here. He does my IMC rating renewal every two years. He turns off the GNS430 and the ADF before we start a long session under the hood, doing unusual attitude recoveries and partial panel exercises. After that's done, I have no idea where I am. He then asks me to show him where on the map we are. This is still under the hood, but being visual doesn't always help over East Anglia.

With one VOR it's doable. With two VORs, it's easier. With a DME as well, it's easy. (But it only works if there are navaids in range.) That's a skill I think is worth practising.

If you can't "find" yourself without the GPS, then I'd say don't rely on the GPS as your only backup!

Keef

If you rely on your unapproved GPS, and get into "difficulties", you can be sure that will be the moment the GPS decides not to work

Do you have any evidence that an "unapproved" GPS is any less reliable than an approved one?

What would you call "unapproved"? The FAA has the "IFR approved" category, which basically means it must be panel mounted, has RAIM, has no way of entering a flight plan except via its own front panel (e.g. no RS232), and probably a few other functional requirements. There is, AFAIK, no requirement regarding hardware or software quality or database accuracy (it's all from Jeppesen anyway).

I am completely certain that the build quality of handhelds is better than that of panel mount units.

In Europe, "IFR approved" means nothing. There is the "BRNAV" category, and SOME "IFR approved" units are also BRNAV (e.g. GNSx30, KLN94B). As far as I can tell "BRNAV" is authorised as sole means of navigation at FL095 and above, IFR, with some conditions probably; not really applicable to a UK PPL.

In theory, a RAIM GPS ought to warn if the signal is being jammed in a particular manner such that the satellite fix still computes, but the computed altitude is wrong.

I fly with a KLN94B/KMD550 (cost maybe £10,000) and it's a great piece of kit but I used to fly with a Skymap 2 portable which frankly was just as good for actual navigation (not as pretty and no stormscope display :O ). It cost £500, one could load the flight plan into it from Navbox thus eliminating a whole load of hassle and possible errors and it was accurate to a few yards including altitude, without exception. Had to use a "suction pad" aerial on the windscreen! I still think this is better than the Garmins because it straps to one's leg; perfect for renting and one only ever occassionally glances at a GPS anyway. The Skymap is now in my emergency bag.

There is no dispute about being able to fly without a GPS; indeed one should VOR/DME concurrently; the workload is trivial and the procedure eliminates practically all gross errors of either method. GPS+visual also works extremely well. If you get a total electrical failure then calling 121.5 is not an option... which takes us to carrying a £300 handheld radio (with a headset adaptor) as an arguably equally sensible precaution.......

IO540

For balance, my experience of rack mount vs handheld is exactly the opposite of yours.

I have found handheld units to be unreliable (I had a Tracker II that just kept freezing) and much more likely to lose signal. My plumbed in Garmin has never once lost signal or RAIM in the many years I have owned it, whereas whenever I fly with people with handhelds, including Skyforce IIIc, signal has been lost at some point, presumably when the airframe eclipses the satellites from the aerial.

On the wider point, I agree with the general concensus, get the DR and pilotage skills up to a point where you can rely on them, then get a good, moving map, GPS. I recommend the Skyforce IIIc, as it has much more detail than most, and is easier to read. When you get your own aircraft, get a proper aerial and plumbing.

W

IO540 - yes, albeit only a few of each. I've flown myself around Southern England and Northern France, with various "handheld" GPS (not CAA approved), and with a GNS430 (approved for BRNAV).

The handhelds have all "lost signal" on me at some point - and with no warning or RAIM indication. The 430 has never so much as sneezed.

I can't comment on the build quality of either, because I've never had them open. The GPS3Pilot (my last handheld) is a very nice, solid, quality feeling bit of kit and I like it. But I like the GNS430 a whole lot better.

I carry an Icom for the day I have a power failure. It has the VOR facility, so in theory I could navigate with it, but don't much fancy the exercise. I've never used it in anger, although it does get used frequently for calling for start clearance.

The GNS430 is indeed not approved in the UK for IFR approaches etc - but it still provides a splendid backup to the ADF when on a procedure :8

I carry an eTrek (cost <100 pounds) which I plug into my PocketPC and run Memory map on. Total cost I'd say was < 500 pounds. It is excellent, I have downloaded all pertinent waypoints to the eTrek ( VORs, NDBs, Airfields) in case the PocketPC goes tits up. However the great thing about the Memory Map charts is that they are exact digital copies of the CAA charts, and they're 100% accurate. No database issues. You can also zoom in to a larger scale chart, so I have the 1:500000, 1:250000 charts, plus a few road maps, and also the airfield diagrams. The airfeild diagrams are brilliant. We landed at Edinburgh, in misty conditions, and it was great for taxying to the GA terminal, you could see your position in real time on the airfield. The charts cost around 50 quid per sector (ie. UK South, UK north and Scotland) and each sector comes with the 1:500000, 1:250000 and airfield diagrams.

Heres an example of using GPS as a safety device. We left Edinburgh cleared to GRICE or wherever it was, and almost immediately entered IMC. We were in a SE aircraft, and monitored our position on the GPS. Had we had an engine failure we would aim to ditch in the Forth via GPS. The cloudbase was very low, reaching up to around 4000'+. We didn't use the GPS for primary nav, but had we lost conventional nav or in an emergency we would have.

Its also quite nice when you get home to download the track from the PocketPC and analyse your flight on a chart of the UK (see how bad your navigating was :D).....

EA

GrassStrip - I'd get one, and heres why.

I too am a low time PPL - about the same as you. I learnt in well equipped 172's with the full panel and moving map GPS. It was there on the panel in front of me, yet I don't think I once referred to the GPS when learning, save for a couple of times when I worked out my position using DR and then glanced at the GPS to see how accurate or otherwise I was. It was, however, there if I needed it.

Lets assume a scenario. You fly to A, but on the way get lost. The wind wasn't as forecast, something wasn't set right, or a gross error was made in planning (shouldn't happen, but it can, and we're all human and susceptible to mistakes). Whatever the reason you end up a way away from where you expect to be. You try looking for features - but still you're not sure. All the while, as a relatively inexperienced PPL, your workload is gradually creeping up, as the pressure on you to find out where you are grows. Now I know you have a number of ways to work out where you are, use radio aids (if you have them), get a QDM from whoever, or even call 121.5 for a position fix. It is essential that you are happy with doing any of the above. To me, though, calling D&D is less preferrable than pulling a GPS out of your bag and using it to find out where you are. Of course, if the GPS is kaput, or the satellites have all been knocked out by a solar flare then it ain't gonna help you much, but the likelyhood of that happening is somewhat less than you being able to say OK - the GPS says I'm here, the map features vs. what I can see confirm it, and I see now where I went wrong - wind must be X instead of Y, or my last turning should have been Z, oops I misread that 1 as a 7 etc. GPS back in bag, on seat, whereever. Workload reduces, and the likelyhood of errors compounding and making a bad situation worse lessens too.

You, like me, enjoy the challenge of DR nav. If you are the sort who likes this, then the fact that you have GPS in your arsenal won't change your basic instinct to navigate using all your senses and tools - unless you let it. it is just a matter of discipline. The continuing GPS/No GPS debate reminds me of the old driving adage - that if you wanted to ensure safe driving, sticking a 6-inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel would certainly make people drive more carefully. Now we've got seatbelts and airbags and ABS, and yes, a lot of people still drive like complete ****'s, but there are drivers out there who stilll take care. Use all the tools at your disposal to ensure safe, enjoyable flying, and used them wisely and appropriately. GPS is a tool like any other, and never should be a crutch.

IMHO, YMMV etc etc...


JP

WCollins & Keef

I've never had the KLN94B fail on reception, and also I've never had the Skymap 2 fail on reception.

What I have seen is a load of hardware failures in very expensive fixed avionics, which would not be tolerated in handhelds - the latter generally being purchased by people who are used to the pretty good reliability of domestic electrical goods :O

I think the key to the widely reported handheld GPS reception problems is the aerial location. If on the unit itself (the usual case with Garmins), it will be shielded by the aircraft much of the time, working perhaps marginally the rest of the time (but you won't know unless you are in the signal stregth menu screen). Attaching it to the top of the front window is a very good solution, I think.

englishal

As a recent survivor of a ditching in the next Firth North, I wouldn't recommend ditching as a plan.

W

GPSs are truly wonderful things and you should buy one as soon as possible. The only reason not to is that the Dickensian CAA syllabus doesn't let you use it. Once you've got through that hoop, it's your number one purchase.

Mine cost £100 so don't tell me you can't afford one. For VFR you take off, set course and then check your GPS. It puts you on the right heading and gives you your groundspeed (= time to next waypoint). Don't trust The Met Office. After that you don't need to look at it again until you are near your next waypoint.

When you get to your destination airfield you can go arrow like into the overhead but equally, if the weather is not so good, you can position yourself easily on any chosen radial to join the circuit or come straight in.

No but it would have been the best option available. Still rather keep me feet dry :D

It's no wonder we are still flying around in a knackered aging GA fleet. Our mindsets are buried in the dark ages. reflecting on the upcoming centery of flight makes me think that if the "brothers" had not accepted and created new thinking and new technology would we even be in the air today?

The fact is that GPS is a modern and reliable piece of equipment that goes a huge way to lowering cockpit workload and improving flight safety.

Pure dead reckoning flight is from the dark ages and the people who advocate that it is the only way to fly and the GPS is evil worry me.

GPS is one of many tools available to the modern pilot and should be used in jointly with all of the tools available to us. I flew an instrument approach to Cambridge recently on the ILS using my FM Immune "certified" equipment 3 weeks out of a star annual. GPS in conjunction with the "approved" kit. Half way down the slope the GS needle stuck in the centre. GPS cross checking with the DME identified the problem straight away and the appoach was completed as a localiser approach from the plates with the GPS verifying that centre line was still being maintained. This was an approach to minimums on a very pooh day.

Flying VFR with the GPS in conjunction with a map, lines and wind gives very satisfying results. I have never been lost. I can identify my position from anyone of the instruments in the aircraft and VFR I can just look out the window.

I have used GPS for the last 500 hours without failure and there is nothing more satisyfing than arriving at a waypoint at the time that I planned it on my map. GPS is a great corrector for wind and other deviations. Perhaps GA would be treat with a little more respect by certain Air Traffic Controllers if they were ALWAYS certain of ther position and there time of arrival at certain points. If we fly like proffessional pilots embracing technology then maybe we will be treat like proffessionals.

Flying is meant to be fun and not eveyones idea of fun is doing guesswork with a map and a stop watch. Perhaps more pilots would fly past there first renewal if things like navigation were made more integrated? This is only going to happen if those who influence our thinking accepted the 21st cenury a little more readily?

For the record I am not saying that there is anything wrong with floating around on a summers eveing with no electrical system and nothing but a map and a stop watch. I also fly microlights and that is a very satisfying way of spending time and navigating. But lets not discourage people from utilising technology just because we think it is evil!

When I learnt to drive the car had no seat belts, I would not even think of buying a car now without seat belts, airbags, ABS, Traction control and any other gadget that will help me. Oh and of course sat nav!

My advice, buy a GPS, integrate it into your cockipit routine, dont rely on any one method of navigation, aim to practice them all and your flying will become more confident and fun.

/end of lengthy rant!

Wonderful post bose-x.
Like you I am so tired of those who advocate only using maps and stopwatch navigation. Even Bomber Harris recognised his crews need more, hence OBO and H2S.
Why is it not recognised that modern car engines with no mixture control, spark advance, carburetor, magneto, and one plug per cylinder, reliably run for over 100,000 miles with no problem, and yet we still have deal with all that 1930's technology in a relatively modern GA aircraft. Same Thinking?

Perhaps those of you that fly (VFR) in a small country with lots of nicely observable ground points, would be well served to spend a little time in an environment that offers very few observable navigation aids to the eye, sometimes for hundreds of miles. Such an experience might cause you reassess your opinion of GPS. Knowing exactly where you are may well prove a life saving piece of knowledge.

Anyone who fly's cross country without the best navigational technology in his hand or in his panel, isn't a safe pilot, IMHO.
Regards,
WB.

Boxe-x

It's no rant, what you say is absolutely right.

But, as I say, the debate will go on.

On the one hand we have the ICAO PPL whose 45 hour (min) WW1 syllabus is just enough to cover basic handling and some basic nav (which, if you HAVE to teach a little bit of SOMETHING USEFUL, has to be visual nav).

On the other hand anyone with enough pence to fly anywhere has a working fridge, freezer, microwave, TV, VCR, car, etc. In fact the car might have a GPS in it. Then he/she goes to learn to fly and what turns up? A 1970 Mk 1 Cortina, original seats, original steering wheel. 99% of prospective customers would not touch this game with a bargepole.

So, those that do turn up tend to be those desperate to fly, and most of them can't really afford to anyway. In a purely business sense, the business attracts most customers from the wrong end of the market. Those with some money are usually attracted to other pursuits.

But the training business just doesn't get it. They blame everything on cost. They pushed for the NPPL. In the end, most of the NPPL takeup has been people who would fail the Class 2 medical.

So we will always get people saying that GPS is bad, bad, bad and one should stick to basics and learn those properly, young man...

In the meantime, new PPL figures are going down and down (and most of them drop out anyway in next to no time), the crowd of fairly regular self fly hire and syndicate flyers is ageing to the point where in 10-20 years time most of them won't be able to get their medicals, the fleet whose average age is 24 years now is getting almost a year older every year.

So the fields that depend on lots of landing fees (most of the bigger non-passenger-jet ones) on the "hamburger runs" will go down. The farm strips will survive OK, so we will always see some flying, but most of today's GA fields will either vanish or their personnel will disappear and grass will grow in the cracks in the runway (just like it does in quite a few already).

The CAA have the figures and trends before them and must see this. Anyone who runs an airfield, a school, or a maintenance shop, will see it also. But individually nobody can do anything about it.

But every time someone mentions modernisation, they get jumped on. In reality, carrying a GPS is about 1/10 of the modernisation which GA needs if it isn't going to sink. New modern planes, and modern operating procedures, are desperately needed.

But, as I say, the debate will go on. Enjoy flying while you can.

End of rant :O

Thought they went into combat on about twelve hours? - or is that urban myth?

I don't suppose I'm adding anything here to what's already been said by more experienced pilots, but...

My view was that if you can afford to obtain the 'latest technology', then why not add it to your inventory?

I will certainly been using trad methods to plan any flights I carry out (until I think I'm invincible, anyway - and that's several hunderd hours down th line :) ), but I like to have it there as another reference...

I've used trad methods and have still had a couple of moments where I've got sweaty palms as I think I might have strayed - and a couple where I actually have... so a greyscale screen confirming or denying my current position would have been an aid to me.

Now - if only I can find one that wakes me up at my destination... kidding, kidding... :D

Hersh

Just as another comment, my grandfather a pilot of 28 war missions and postwar navigation instructor was astounded to discover that I used his "whizzy wheel" 50 years later. He could not believe that we still used out dated dead reckoning in this day and age and at 82 odd years of age thinks the GPS is one of the best navigation tools going.

This from a man who has more hours in the air than I will ever hope to achieve.

IO540 touches on a point that gets to me. These "1960s tech" aircraft that we fly are fine, they're safe, and they don't compare with the techno-toys we have at home. Fine. When I go for walks, I don't need much tech, either.

But... even this low tech level needs some pretty well honed skills to keep on top of it. Today, two of us flew to Le Touquet for fun (and for lunch). We encountered some thin stratus along the way - no problem: we've both done plenty of this before so we told ATC and climbed above it.

Meanwhile, there was another PA28 a few miles ahead, on the same route as us, who was clearly having trouble coping. His RT was snatched, and whenever we saw him (below the clouds we were above), he was at a different height and going in a different direction. We worried, on the basis he seemed to be "on the ragged edge".

He got there and back OK, but I would have been very nervous if I'd been in the back of that aircraft. He was a long way "behind" it.

My point: latest tech (devices like GNS430) would probably add to his stress level, because there are so many buttons to press and so much to do and know before it starts to "help". The 1970 Cortina wasn't beautiful, but it was basic, simple reliable motoring with no sneaky bits to bite you and not many buttons to press.

We can "simplify" aircraft (up to a point), but the pilot still has to be able to "manage" this device in 3 dimensions, while navigating and communicating. The clever bits come later. I made my daughters learn to drive on the Missus' 65HP banger, not my 210HP batmobile, for similar reasons.

And of course he he may have been trying to work out his position using a map and a stop watch, too afraid to use the nice shiny GNS430 in case those who "know better" thought that he was not doing the job properly?

Modern equipment such as the GNS430 in this example is designed using intuative user interfaces and in fact are very simple to operate. I managed to work out a dual GNS430/530 stormscope etc in 5 minutes without problem the first time I used it and flew IFR to Titusville from Miami.

I would suggest that he was behind the curve becuase he may have been at the edge of his ability trying to find his way in the murk in his clapped out ill equipped 1970 Cortina and the map and stopwatch probably just exacberated the situation?

Personally I would let my children learn in my 350hp batmobile, if they can learn to handle that in a controlled manner then 65hp toy car is going to be a lot easier? The quality of instruction......

It seems to be that the generation that did not grow up with the electronic gadgetary are the most ardent supporters of the "old way" (with the exception of my grandfather it seems!).

Unfortunatly it is still this generation that are influencing the newcomers to our "obsession hobby" and could be another answer why we fail to retain new pilots?

What younger person these days does not know how to operate a play station a picture message, decode a DTS DVD etc?

I put my life in the electronics of my CCR diving equipment and dive to 150m on it.

Technology is the life of the modern world. I am not a "sproggling" anymore but I am managed to manipulate this internet thangy with a triple monitor setup and write this message, programming a GPS is childs play!

Just a thought!





:ok: :ok: :ouch:

Oh, when I go for walks I take the GPS ... must get round to learning how to use the one in the plane one day.

Keef

My point was that while I accept the present training situation is all that is possible in the "PPL market" as it currently stands in its utterly decrepit form, if it is left to continue (which I am sure it will be) there will fairly soon be not much left to discuss because not a lot of people will be flying. On present trends, the situation will be pretty dire indeed just 10 years from now.

Obviously one needs to learn basic handling but there is no rational case for doing navigation with a piece of string. This is why anyone who has a PPL and is off flying on their own should use the best technology available to them. If the batteries go flat, etc, etc, you've still got your plog and you can fly headings, call up some radar unit, 121.50, etc. Or plug in spare batteries.

But this isn't a solution to the wider issue I refer to above; the number of people who are interested in proving their manhood by spending 60hrs in a decrepit C150 and twiddling a circular slide rule, is going down all the time.

A GNS430 is not a good example; it is the very last thing I would put in a mainly-VFR plane; it is overly complex and the screen is much too small to work as a useful moving map. The main reason it is so popular is that it is efficient on panel space (contains a radio/VOR/ILS) which in many cases makes it the only option, and the avionics shop makes a load of money on the supply and fitting. Something like a KMD150 would be a much better bet, a big colour screen and it takes just one glance to see everything.

ie the bloke who started the thread.

There seems to be a two camps here who are convinced that one side are Luddites who only advocate "WW1" flying and another who think the other side can't tell where they are unless Mr Garmin tells them.

To get back to the original post, a low-houred PPL about to go out on his own, asked whether he should buy a GPS straight away. My opinion would be no, he should be concentrating on honing his dead reckoning and map reading skills for the simple reason that although electrical failures do happen, they don't happen to laminated maps and the Mark 1 eyeball. When he's happy with his 'antiquated' navigation skills, then buy a GPS and whatever else is going to help him enjoy his flying.

There's also the point that if you're hour-building in preparation for your commercial license, you really should be practicing the skills you'll be tested on then. (All described in great detail by FFF ;) )

GrassStrip

My advice is somewhat different to Fuji Abounds! Go ahead and get a GPS, but get the cheapest (reliable) unit you can get. A Garmin Etrek or a Magellan 310 (my one) which you can get for sub £100 or $ if you visit the States.

In prepping for your flight.

Do the old fashioned planning

Carefully input your waypoint map references and use the subsequent distances as a cross check against the above.

Take the thing with you. Stick it above the dash somewhere and... forget about it.

Enjoy the flight, work on your VFR navigation technique, and if you do become temporarily unaware - you've got a great failsafe.

When you've really got on top of VFR navigation, that will be the time to invest in the fancy moving map gizmos should you feel the need (IMHO).