I have been folowing this thread with interest including a few posts.

I was flying today. The mission was only an hour, cloud base around 1,300 feet, viz maybe 4K. Like Drauk I didnt hear a single Pan but I did have a Speedbird on the wrong frequency.

On the occasions I have used guard for the odd genuine training fix with other pilots (I admit not very often) I have not heard all these calls so it was interesting to listen out for an hour. I should have expected around 40 calls in that time.

I too would be very interested to know WWW where you get your figures from??:confused

You got to learn to take www with a pinch of salt.

Last time he ventured into the domain of the 'heroes of the PFA' he was ranting on about how we all needed to install mode S because

I genuinely don't think he likes light aircraft pilots unless they are students providing hours for instructors so they can get into the airlines.

"Hundreds and thousands of times"

Conservatively that is 104 every 90 seconds - it is not really surprising they get their frequencies confused.

Still, never a dull moment.

Glad to see this debate is not straying into the realms of childishness.:rolleyes:

Airlines may not pay tax on fuel, but who pays for ATC in this country? It certainly isn't G/A. Oh that's right, it's paid for by the airlines........ F3G, you might not, but I certainly whinge about how much tax we have to pay on AVGAS, one of the reasons we are just about to get a diesel machine.

However, the argument about who pays for what and who doesn't is utterly spurious in this situation, personally I have no idea what the statistics are and to be frank I'm not sure I care.

The simple point is this. If you think you are lost or in trouble in any way, ask for help. You can always downgrade if things get better, but at least if there is a problem, then the people who may be able to help you are already aware of any difficulties.

It is not the fact that people use this service that bothers me, but the fact that it is regarded as an aid. I've said it before and I'll say it again, PPL's would be far more advised in getting their general standard on navigation up, than thinking up ways of covering over the cracks.

The general consensus amongst examiners and the CAA is that the standard of nav skills in the PPL world is very poor. Maybe it over-reliance on aids such as GPS? Or just that Navigation is being badly taught in schools? Whatever it is the facts are clear, more people than ever are bouncing into control zones and busting danger areas.

We fly in very congested airspace in this country, where unlike a lot of other countries it is very, very easy to make mistakes. We have lots of areas where light aircarft can have a very large (and usually negative) effect on commercial Ops. Whilst I have every sympathy for the G/A community (being part of it helps!) it can be hugely frustrating if you are screaming along at 250kts+ and you all of a sudden have to take avoiding action, because someone can't be bothered to put their transponder on ALT, mind you even then it doesn't always help, since the altitude readout is still unverified.

There will always be problems between commercial traffic and G/A, since their goals and requirements are totally different.

Anyway back to the point, If you are monitoring 121.5, you won't hear every call from light a/c, simply because their radios aren't powerful enough, but you'll certainly hear an awful lot more commercial traffic because of the power output and altitude of the transmissions. So it isn't really any kind of argument to say "I heard this whilst I was flying" therefore it's gospel.

I certainly know that people use this service and don't admit to being on trouble, since I talk to pilots and have often heard the boast about not admitting to being lost, but somehow pulling a fast one by getting help from D&D under the guise of a 'training fix' whilst in reality not having a clue where they were.

That is the attitude I object to, trying to hoodwink an excellent services to cover their own inadequacies. Not on and in my case leads to a swift 'chat' about not taking the p*ss.
By all means use the service if you are genuinely lost and need help or to confirm where you think you are, but just don't boast about how clever you are afterwards to the CFI. All I'm thinking is what a prat, not what a clever chap.

SAS If you re-read my post that first mentions tax on avgas, you will see that I used it as an analogy to parody WWWs ludicrous comments about a PPLs use of training fixes causing a disaster. Having consulted to major airlines, I am aware of their contribution towards ATC and for that matter the airport and pax taxes too.

Other than that, I tend to agree with everything else that you say.

I do like a healthy debate. Saw Again Slowly has my position spot on.

Airliners going off guard then missing a frequecy change IS IS IS a serious flight safety hazard and the reason so many aren't on Guard in Northern Europe is the high level of GA Training Fix and its evil twin Practice Pan in the UK FIR. Its way above my pay grade to sort the problem but I hope someone will look into it soon.

Cheers

WWW

I wonder if the number of training fix requests has increased as a result of this thread.

SAS

No doubt in my mind that nav is poorly addressed in PPL training, but it's not because of over reliance on GPS.

GPS is just about never used in PPL training (fair enough, not in the syllabus) and I would suggest a simple (if impractical) experiment:

Get a 100 PPLs (chosen to be a representative sample of experience of real PPLs) to fly a decent x/c route, through some real airspace issues, e.g. Goodwood to Prestwick. In the winter, in a standard non-deiced aircraft.

Well within their PPL privileges!

Get 50 of them to blindly follow a moving map GPS while remaining at/above the planned MSA and not looking at the ground at all, for the whole route. No chart permitted aboard the aircraft, either.

Get 50 of them to navigate using dead reckoning as they've been taught.

Which group do you think will bust more airspace?

Which group do you think will have more fatal accidents along the way?

I think the answer is obvious.

"We" teach navigation as it was in 1920, with no CAS, and in the days when flying was done by real (generally wealthy) men wearing leather caps and goggles, in cloth covered biplanes, who liked danger, excitement, who got admired by the press and the public for doing wild things (even if 99.9% of the public could not afford to do these things). This favourable situation lasted, in one form or another, till about 40 years ago.

But everything else has changed.

Today's PPLs are pretty average people, and most can't even afford a decent headset.

The training industry, what's left of it given the above rather significant constraint, is keen to strip £8000 off everyone who walks through the door - can't blame them, if I was running a school I'd probably be doing the same.

The CAA (the only organisation with the oversight to do anything about this) isn't bothered. They run safety seminars telling people to not fly into hills - especially not with a GPS.

IO540

I can see the thrust of your argument, however ...

So what makes you think such PPLs will be able to afford to have their GPS database updated to show CAS boundary changes every AIRAC cycle ??

None of this logically makes any sense at all!

WWW is objecting to pilots asking for a training fix when they are lost and is suggesting that the vast majority of training fixes are really from pilots who are lost or who are "nearly" lost.

If a pilot is lost or nearly lost he needs to make the call on 121.5. We all agree on that. We also agree the pilot should own up to being lost, although some of us argue being uncertain of your position in contrast to totally lost doesn’t warrant a full pan. We also seem to agree that the vast majority of the calls aren’t pilots wanting a genuine training fix - in other words those that know their position accurately.

The argument for me is therefore nonsense because we have an allegedly huge number of pilots who are lost or nearly lost who should be making the call in the interests of everyone’s safety and yet we are proposing to legislate against them doing so. Who is running the asylum??!!

Whether all these pilots should be lost or nearly lost is a totally different matter. Clearly they should not. Who is to blame - well I am afraid it has to be the FIs. The fact of the matter is get the training right and the problem will go away.

I have one analogy. When we are new pilots we have our fare share of go arounds. No one asks if these are practise go arounds or are because the landing is looking a bit iffy! In either case they do take up valuable ATC time but we recognise there necessity. Of course we could only permit a go around with a FI aboard unless it was a real go around:confused:

"Anyway back to the point, If you are monitoring 121.5, you won't hear every call from light a/c, simply because their radios aren't powerful enough, but you'll certainly hear an awful lot more commercial traffic because of the power output and altitude of the transmissions. So it isn't really any kind of argument to say "I heard this whilst I was flying" therefore it's gospel."

You are of course correct BUT it still doesn’t explain why the numbers of calls are so much fewer than suggested.

Say again slowly,

You say

"It is not the fact that people use this service that bothers me, but the fact that it is regarded as an aid."

Then you say

"By all means use the service if you are genuinely lost and need help or to confirm where you think you are"

There is a contradiction in there somewhere.

"So it isn't really any kind of argument to say "I heard this whilst I was flying" therefore it's gospel."

But that is the basis of www's argument. Besides, you might not hear the spamcan but you will hear the D&D side. Just out of interest, how often do you hear GA calls on 121.5, either practice pans or asking for training fixes (or the ground station replying).

What I think is interesting, and probably goes to the root of this debate and the problems GA has in the UK, is when you say

"There will always be problems between commercial traffic and G/A, since their goals and requirements are totally different."

An interesting attitude, and one I think is totally wrong. Look across the sea and you will find places where GA and non GA live side by side in almost perfect harmony. Of course if one side has contempt for the other then there will never be agreement, which appears to be the situation here.

www,

Healthy debate is fine, so why don't you enter into one? If you blunder in here telling people they are talking 'horse****, then make apparently wild claims and on questioning cannot justify them (or ignore the questions) you cannot complain if you lose some credibility.

PPRuNe Radar

I was hoping that my requirement to not carry a chart would be taken as intended (very obviously tongue in cheek) to illustrate the ludicrous double standard that exists in GA.

There is a huge gulf between the training, and what is expected of today's pilots in terms of navigation.

There is no place for contempt amongst aviators of any kind, be they airline pilots or PPL's.

I try and see it from both sides (as an airline jockey and FI). WWW's argument is his, not mine, I can only talk about the points I put across.

My argument about aids is to not use D&D like a VOR or GPS, but as the emergency service it really is.

One analogy is, would you call an ambulance because you had a minor cut? No I hope not, they have better things to be worrying about. But if you have cut yourself with a bandsaw and there's claret everywhere, then get them there as fast as possible. It may not be serious, but the uncertainty means you need to ask for help.

If you are a 'little bit lost' i.e pretty much know where you are, but are unable to identify a feature, don't automatically go for 121.5. Think about it. Are you likely to break into a zone? Is there any chance of going into a danger area? Have you even checked wether the danger areas are active? Are you running out of juice? Why are you unsure of your position? Check your DI, Compass, Hdg, MSA, PLOG to see if you just made a silly error.

Are there any features that would allow you to work out your position?

If at that point you still can't work out where you are, then you are lost, Call D&D. Until you've done all you can yourself why do you think you are lost?

Our licences allow us to fly all over the world if we wish, if you are reliant on one service such as D&D to get you out of trouble, then what do you do if you go somewhere that doesn't have the service? D&D are a back up for when you are in trouble. Getting a bit unsure on a navex doesn't really count as 'trouble' in my book. Take some responsiblity and work it out for yourself using the methods that you should have been taught.

IO,

I think GPS is the single best thing that has happened to G/A since the Wright Bros. thought it might be fun try this flying lark.
I personally always have a handheld GPS in my bag and think everyone should know how to use the things properly. an extract from a recent trainingcom.

I heartily agree with it's sentiments.

On last thing from FujiThe training of students in some places is not as good as it should be, but PPL's are licenced pilots themselves and it should be their responsibility to ensure that their skills are up to scratch. After all, do you blame driving instructors for some of the idiots that clog up our roads?

People forget over time and if they don't keep up to date and practice the skills required, then it doesn't matter if the best FI in the world has taught you, you will be crap. End of!

"People forget over time and if they don't keep up to date and practice the skills required, then it doesn't matter if the best FI in the world has taught you, you will be crap. End of!"

.. .. .. and that is why, unlike driving a car, we have biannual check rides.

.. .. .. but with driving a car the insurance companies know it is the new drivers who carry the greatest risk and in the same way I would have a bet with you it is mostly the new pilots who get lost. The difference is that if the trainers were doing their job they might get lost less often.

All said and done I guess we have a pretty active fraternity of PPLs in this country. When a pilot gets his license as we all know he is just starting to learn. He will make mistakes. ATPLs on the other hand have well over a thousand hours. Moreover they have some of the best equipment available to ensure accurate navigation. Sadly their are a few ATPLs who forget we all started out the same way.

I personally think it is a bit sad to be so ready to change the legislation a bit like hooting at the learner driver when he stalls at the cross road.

Say Again,

ATC exists for the benefit of commercial avaition, not private. So it is just and right that they should pay. In fact, they should pay us for the inconvenience (only kidding). There is the issue of LARS, but then again, without huge amounts of controlled airspace squeezing us into low and/or narrow confines, would we really miss LARS?

Obviously, in many ways private aviation maybe unrecognisable for the worse without commercial aviation, but you get my dift...I hope.

Actually we don't have a very active PPL fraternity at all in this country. I don't have the figures to hand, but the number of hours flown on average is very low compared to places like the states. Couple that to the very few who revalidate their licences as well, you have a picture that isn't too healthy.
The whys and wherefore's aren't the issue here however.

Just because an ATPL has thousands of hours doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes or are still learning. I for one am very aware of the fact that I don't know it all and there are areas that I should increase my knowledge.

If you think a bi-ennial check ride keeps people safe, then you are sadly mistaken. It is nothing but a very quick snapshot that most of the time doesn't even touch on navigation skills.

I still think it is a bit rich to continually blame instructors for all the ills of the G/A world. Most of us do our best and (hopefully) do a good job in equipping people with the basic skills needed to keep themselves alive in their a/c. Keeping the skill level up is however YOUR responsibility. I will only step in when I see something dangerous or hear about some dodgy practices. I am however always available to my club members if they aren't sure of something or want some help, but not being a mind reader I often have to wait for them to ask.

I'm not so sure that it is new pilots who are busting zones etc. It is a real fact that for most pilots who fly very little, that they are at their best when they ready for test, why? Simply because at that stage you are usually flying intensively and as we all know, the more often you fly, the better you generally are. In my experience, new PPL's are often the ones I worry about least, since I am far more likely to know their capabilities and they seem to be more willing to ask for and listen to any advice.

If you have any proof that this is not the case I would be interested to see the figures.

HWD,
Hopefully ATC exists for the benefit of us all, not just the airlines who are picking up most of the tab. Actually I find it worrying that any group should get priority because of financial reasons, rather than on a needs basis. Not having a decent LARS service any more is a travesty and should be reversed at the earliest possible opportunity. Pigs will fly first unless the RAF suddenly have their budget quadrupled!:{

SAS

That's not where it should be :O

It should be in the panel, with a decent rooftop aerial. A completely different scenario.

Where is the evidence for the mis-use of GPS? I am sure it happens but why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

In particular, and this is what I was getting at in my slightly daft suggestion earlier, are nav errors caused by misunderstanding of a GPS more common than those done while dead reckoning?

The latter cannot possibly be less error prone but, as I am fond of repeating, doing a CFIT while DR is just bad luck whereas doing a CFIT while on GPS is really poor airmanship :O

We can't have GPS within the existing PPL syllabus because the 45hrs is already too short for most people, so this is a pointless discussion really.... in the meantime, the PPL population is shrinking, partly because people don't come out with the skills they need to go somewhere half interesting.

Anyway, I am off for 2 weeks and 4000 miles, dodging TCUs at FL150 and navigating with GPS as PRIMARY (with VOR/ADF/DME backup on the rare occassions I will find some) the whole time :O

Actually it is pretty rare that I get the thing out of it's bag, unless I'm going somewhere I don't know that well and even then it really is supplementary, but a fantastic back up.

No nav aid is perfect, though GPS is very, very good. It won't stop you from flying into a mountain, just give you the information that should make it impossible for you to be that stupid!

Personally I think that GPS makes navigation incredibly easy and far safer, but I think the point that Pat Lander was making in the Trainingcom is that GPS units can be relatively complex if you have never used one before. Most people only know how to use the absolute basics and don't know the capabilities of these systems.

If you have an out of date database, then you have no warning of airspace changes etc. (as mentioned by Pprune Radar earlier), I think this is one of the things people need to learn about GPS before they become reliant on it. Often people are unaware of the limitations, especially things such as aerial mountings and what happens when you get near sites that put out alot of radio interference.

If you understand the limitations of any system, then you are a much safer pilot than one who blindly believes that the magic box will always keep you out of trouble.

As an aside, we are about to order a Diamond DA-40 and have been warned off the Garmin 1000 kit by the manufacturers, since the a/c will be used for hire. They are worried because people need a 2 day course in how to use the avionics because they are so different to the norm and that people will get into a lot of trouble. It may be a bit of an over-reaction, but I have to respect their view point.

I actually agree with them, even if I am a bit dissappointed myself since I would love to have the glass cockpit version. In fact what we will probably do is that when we get a second one we may have that with all the toys, once our members have got used to using something that is a bit more familiar.

“Actually we don't have a very active PPL fraternity at all in this country.”

Other than the States and Canada - tell me a country with a more active GA fleet?

“Just because an ATPL has thousands of hours doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes or are still learning.”

In fact indirectly that was the point I sought to make. If ATPLs with 1,000s of hours make mistakes, like accidental calls on guard, have a bit of patience with PPLs who neither have the hours or the kit to reduce their workload.

“If you think a bi-ennial check ride keeps people safe, then you are sadly mistaken. It is nothing but a very quick snapshot that most of the time doesn't even touch on navigation skills.”

I accept your point although I think that if this problem is as bad as made out instructors could include some navigation work in the check ride.

“If you have any proof that this is not the case I would be interested to see the figures.”

Agreed and I was hasty in making this assertion. It would be very interesting to know the background of all these pilots who are so frequently getting lost.

France and Germany.

I have plenty of patience when people make mistakes. If I didn't, then I wouldn't be any good as an instructor! (Some may argue that anyway!!)

Inexperience should not be an excuse for incompetence, in the same way that ignorance of the law makes no difference when in a court. There are basic skills that we all should have. knowing how to read a map and to perform lost procedures are some I feel are pretty essential for any competent pilot. If you can't perform these satisfactorily, then off to D&D you go, just don't try and pretend you aren't lost when in actual fact you are and are probably starting to flap as well.

I agree that Nav should be covered on the bi-ennial, in fact I insist upon it, but this is not mandatory.

I think I'm missing quite how that was intended to be a joke ... clearly CFIT whilst navigating by DR in VFR is almost impossible, whereas flying into something real in the outside world whilst you're heads down playing computer games sounds like a distinct possibility.

The UK has around 23,000 PP about .04% of the population, Germany and France both have a similar percentage of the population. That said GA, compared with the US, is in a poor state in Europe.

I couldn’t agree more about inexperience and ignorance. I fully support pilots owning up when lost and agree it should be a rare occurrence.

Pilots should not get lost and if they are with the regularity WWW suggests there is a significant problem. If the problem exists then surely the root cause must be with the training. Yes, pilots are responsible for keeping up their own skill levels but if they are not doing so - why not? Either they are on the whole irresponsible (possible:D ) or the initial and re-occurrence training is not instilling in them a regime for keeping up their own skill levels. I am not bashing FI, simply debating how the problem might be fixed.

I suppose there is a third possibility which is that as a whole private pilots just do not fly enough to consistently ensure they will not got lost. If that is so, maybe we should accept the problem, BUT I would still argue the solution is in persuading pilots to own up when genuinely lost not claim it is a practice fix, rather than to make it illegal to ask for a practice fix unless there is a FI aboard. After all, however you describe them, their will still be the same number of calls to D and D unless their really are huge numbers of pilots using the service to make genuine training fixes! (which again if it is causing the problem suggested then FIs should persuade pilots not to make so many training fixes!)

"Pan Pan Pan Golf Blah Lost, Last known position Nottingham maintaining 3000 feet QNH".

"London Centre, this is Golf Blah, requesting a training fix maintaining 3000 feet QNH".

Can't see the difference meself. One is going to get his "Pan acknowledged" which will take 0.89 extra seconds. But then he's also going to get extra goodies such as beware of Glider Site 2 miles in your 2 o'clock and also the MSA. He's also going to be telling the truth.

You either know your position or don't and therefore you are either Lost or you aren't. You are not rehearsing nor teaching an r/t procedure and therefore are in no need of a training fix.

Commercial aviation is a vital export earner and net importer of wealth and jobs to UK Plc so please lets not have the Sunday Cessna brigade pontificating on issues of fuel taxation. And will you ladies get off being so offended by the terms horse****. It was merely a deftly used mildest of expletives deployed to harness an enthusiastic response on what is a fairly full topic. Don't take PPRuNe too seriously for heavens sake!

Cheers

WWW

Actually I think the issue of fuel taxation is one of the major safety debates that there is at the moment. Why is flying so expensive? One of the major reasons is fuel costs, mostly made up of duty and VAT.
We all agree that people who fly more often are generally safer than those who fly occasionally.

So if we cut the cost, people fly more often, therefore G/A gets safer and more competent.
Now how do we lobby government?!

In France and Germany, there may be a similar amount of pilots, but I'll wager they fly a bit more than we do here. Overall I have often felt there is a different attitude in Europe to light aircraft and in general it is positive, rather than here where the BAA and other esteemed bodies seem hell bent on making life as difficult as possible.

Unfortunately I would have to say that many pilots (leaving out licence types here) can sometimes have a bit of an ego problem. I have certainly come across it, especially when I started teaching as a 22 year old. Invariably middle aged succesful business men who weren't used to having some young spod telling them what to do! Battles of wills were often inevitable. I'm glad to say I think I won them all though!

Maybe my view has been skewed by these experiences, but many don't seem to have the whit to work out what they don't know, let alone spend the time keeping their skills up.One way around this is to get rid of the biennial flight with an instructor and make everyone do a full skills test again. Not likely to be popular though. (except from the examiners financial point of view!)

For those skilled with a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Time to stop playing your one note guitar WWW, you don't have a lot of credibility on this thread following your ludicrous claims and failure to provide any justification for them.

Final 3 Greens: On a thread called 'Training Fixes' you'll forgive me for sticking to the one note rather than digressing into a symphony of fuel duty, GPS naviagation and PPL training standards... Or maybe you won't.

My ludicruous claim is that many Training Fix calls should be Lost calls. That the overuse of 121.5 in the UK FIR is leading to more incidents of Guard not being monitored and this is to the detriment of flight safety.

The result of my claims is a communication with CHIRP and the CAA SRG for this to be looked at.

Cheers

WWW

ps And Practice Pans can be shown the door as well unless with an instructor.

yada, yada, yada,,,,,,,,,, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Does it matter if its a training fix or lost call? at the end of the day they are still using the same frequency!

Flik Roll

I think that is exactly the point that WWW just does not want to grasp.

So called training fixes will become I am actually lost calls - no change in the numbers there then, and presumably the few totally genuine training fixes will become even fewer so not much change there.

So after all this debating and writing to CHIRP and the CAA all that has happened is we have just called training fixes by a different name - but FAR FAR worse there may be some pilots who feel guilty about now say they are really lost, so don’t bother, bust some airspace and increase everyone’s work load never mind the safety implications. Yeah, we know they shouldn’t feel guilty, but it is no ground pretending the human condition does not exist - that is just nuts.

Sorry to go about it, but why oh why cant we recognise that these sort of problems are down to training. I am not blaming the instructors for the sake of it, but in my own experience I just don’t think instructors do enough to instill in pilots sound navigational skills or the need to recognise they are responsible for their own ongoing training. When was the last time you did a navex on your biannual and the instructor suggested you go and do a bit more currency training after your performance?

Oh no, don't provoke the Wonky Welsh Windbag, we'll never hear the end of it. :}

Fuji,
I do hope that people won't stop calling for help if they need it. For the final time, that is not what WWW and I have been objecting to. It is people calling and pretending they aren't lost when in reality they are. Am I alone in hoping that the pilots of this country aren't so idiotic as to not be able to admit mistakes? If that is the case, then ban them all! there is no place for egotism in an a/c cockpit. Especially when things are going wrong. Confidence yes, Ego no.

If D&D themselves don't see a need to change procedures, then nor do I.

It's funny, but I mentioned tis thread to my other half, who is a non-flyer and not particularily fussed by it all. Her reaction?
"Just make it so that people can only call for a training fix when there is an FI onboard." As I've said before, I don't agree with that, but it's always interesting how someone unconnected with the minutae of an issue percieves it.

Which Wonky Welsh Windbag are you talking about? I've been accused of being one of those a few times myself.

SAS

Didn't know you were Welsh and the alliteration holds a clue ;)

SAS,

Your contributions to this thread are well thought out and stand out above several others, but this thread is not about GA pilots pretending they aren't lost when they are. I see it as being about GA pilots responding to yet another ill thought out threat to reduce services that UK GA pilots receive. Nobody has said it's OK to lie.

Say again slowly


It is sometime a struggle to know how much of this is tongue in cheek. Whether or not it is for the final time, it doesn’t mean your point is correct.

I sense everyone agrees, including you and WWW, that training fixes disguising lost fixes are not a good idea, but you cannot really believe that was WWWs arguement.

"I'd make it an offence for anyone without an FI Rating to ask for a training fix. In fact I am writing to the CAA SRG today to ask for that to become a UK rule."

That seems to me a pretty clear and understandable statement of intent. Bluntly I disagree with the statement and the intent.

In any event the solution does not solve the problem to which you refer. As I said earlier the number of calls will presumably stay much the same (one every 90 seconds), so WWW will still be annoyed, and to make matters worse there will now be a few pilots who don’t want to admit to being lost - the consequences of which pale into insignificance with WWW being a bit annoyed.

I would not normally take such a vociferous stance but how can we possibly support a proposed change to legislation which would seem to be based on unreliable information (a call every 90 seconds) and which too boot would not seem to solve the perceived problem.

How about we call it a 'position fix'. Then it can be used for either training or as confirmation of position. A multi-purpose phrase which encompases both training and non-training scenarios - a bit like go-arounds as suggested by Fuji.

SAS,
The bit I fail to grasp, is why does it make any difference if they pretend to be lost or actually are? Who cares if they are trying to save face? That isn't my idea of lying, which I would prefer to align with deviousness, not embarressment. Also, being afraid to admit to mistakes doesn't make you an idiot. I would wager that the only pilots who could grudgingly admit they really have messed up big time is a narrow band between the most unconfident and the most confident. Also, it has occured to me that it is called a "Training Fix" to not discourage people from calling sooner than later - is a little bit of psycology beyond the CAA?

It's funny, but I've always been the first to admit to my mistakes. I don't see them as a failing unless they happen over and over.
One of the reasons I am totally open with my students and members so that they can see that I have had my fair share of mistakes and problems. Hopefully this means they will be more forthcoming with me if they do have problems, rather than worrying if I'd bite their head off if they admit to any stuff up.

Is psychology beyond our friends at the belgrano? Not sure if it is, but the whole point is that we should all be adult enough to know when we've ar*ed up. D&D aren't some big scarey organisation who will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you call saying you are lost. They are an extremely professional organisation who are there to help you, not punish you.
You aren't going to get kicking from anyone for calling for help. It is the right thing to do and that's it.

The reasons why people do something aren't really the debate, swallowing a bit of pride and realising that you aren't Biggles may be a bit of a kick to your pride, but what's more important. Doing the right thing and asking for help or trying to muddle out of it and potentially causing more problems down the line?

If you've reached the point where you realise you are lost. Most people will be starting to panic somewhat. We all know that you don't generally make good decisions when you are panicking, so why not help yourself as much as possible by getting the D&D service working for you properly. It will take a massive load off your mind straight away knowing that you're in safe hands.

As said before, I agree with WWW sentiments about not abusing the D&D service, but I cannot agree with the idea of only allowing FI's or P/UT's to ask for training fixes. Having a pratice every so often is fine by my book as long as that is exactly what it is. A practice not pretending to be something else.

A bit of noise on 121.5 is fine sometimes, it lets me know the box is still working! It doesn't bug me too much hearing calls, it's the "G-blah-de-blah good morning" whilst we're screaming through the localiser that get my goat!

"G-blah-de-blah good morning"

Now there is another point with which I agree totally! I wish so many pilots didn’t have to share their life history with us.

I think this thread is of great interest because it has become quite a detailed analysis of the way in which we react and the factors that influence us.

There are those who are "happy" to admit their mistakes, and the greater majority who I suspect are less happy. I think it is a hall mark of the professional pilot, and particularly the commercial pilot, that they are more willing to admit mistakes that the private pilot. Is this so because there has been much emphasis on the dangers of taking an ego into the workplace?

Why are the greater majority less happy to admit mistakes? Perhaps it says something about our society when in many work places admission of mistakes is seen as a weakness or is it society has just become less tolerant of small mistakes. (A speeding ticket for being 4 mph over the limit for maybe only a few hundred yards of a 30 mph zone). Perhaps our reaction to these pressures is that we resist admitting we are wrong?

I think safety has to recognise the human condition. Not a lot is to be gained by saying pilots should own up to being lost if the evidence is they are more likely to blunder on rather than admit their mistake. (and I use the word "if" carefully because I have no evidence to support my contention).

If I am correct perhaps Romeo Romeo has it - why get hung up on "forcing" a pilot to admit he is lost. A service is available to enable a pilot to confirm his position and I bet in the vast majority of cases a pilot will only seek to confirm his position because he feels he needs to.

No one, including fortunately even WWW, has suggested that when a pilot admits he is lost he should be penalised in some way. (although you could imagine the CAA might write to him suggesting some currency training would be in order!).

Hopefully, if a training fix doesn’t sort the problem out, and our pilot is dreadfully lost he will still have the sense to turn his position fix into a "help, I need vectors!" and as someone else said D and D probably have a good idea when a pilot is really getting into problems. In other words when we start to get really scared we will admit almost anything!

All of this doesn’t really solve the problem as to why people are getting lost so often. I don’t accept it is every 90 seconds but I do accept it occurs more often than it should. Training must have something to do with it and I cant help feeling the opportunity of reviewing navigation at the bi-annual is often not taken. I think pilots are also more conscious of the need to know their position more accurately that in the past because of the amount of controlled airspace, danger areas, notam restrictions etc that exist and the "threat" that uninvited incursions will be treated very seriously. Perhaps pilots on the whole fly less hours than they use to but I don’t have the evidence to support this. As others have said I agree that the powers that be have been very slow to recognise the impact of new technology - I personally think the use of a moving map GPS should be a requirement of the PPL syllabus.

As always it is only by properly understanding the problem that solutions can be found - a somewhat simple statement that seems to be all to often ignored. As I have already said I get vociferous when the knee jerk reaction (from people who should know better) is to legislate to solve a problem without apparently seeking to understand the problem and what the effect of simply changing the legislation is likely to be. In this instance I think it would be less calls to D and D, but more incursions and more pilots getting themselves into serious problems. Please WWW don't do it, don't suggest the legislation be changed , find a better way.

Yeah, but, if you've been doing any flying at all during the two years then you'll recognise everything within 15 minutes flying time of base anyway, which is as far as you'll get in a one hour flight some of which has to be spent on circuits, so there's not a lot of scope for challenging nav there.

Rather a lot of very silly comments on this thread, I regret to say.

Firstly, the Training Fix is a method for practising D&D procedures for pilots and D&D personnel alike. If it has degenerated into a navigational technique used by those who won't admit they're actually lost, then that is an abuse of the system. It also throws doubt on the personal integrity of the pilot; if he won't admit to being lost, what else won't he admit to...?

If airliner-drivers are genuinely inconvenienced by excessive use of 121.5, then perhaps CHIRP action should be taken.

There is no mandatory content for the 2-yearly training flight with an instructor. FI and pilot should decide between them what they wish to practise. It is not a US-style 'Biennial Flight Review', nor should it be termed 'a biennial' as that will lead to ambiguity.

The CFE has stated that an element of visual navigation shall be required as part of a SEP Class Rating Revalidation LPC or Renewal LST (Section 3A). The extent of the navigation exercise is at the Examiner's discretion and should take into account the recent experience of the pilot.

My overall opinion is that WWW is essentially correct, but hasn't made his case particularly well. The bottom line:

A Training Fix is not a valid navigational technique, nor is it appropriate for pilots who are genuinely lost who should advise D&D accordingly. It is purely a method for practising the relevant D&D procedures