ATCO17, you clearly wrote that the wildy tracked from WW and in no way implied that it was from WW.

The whole point of the qualifying cross country is to demonstrate a pilot's competence to plan and fly from specified point A to specified point B by visual DR navigation. Although the GPS would be a superb guard against infringing CAS and the like, it would also, pound to a pile of poo, become the means of navigation. Proof of competence immediately becoming square root of sod all.

For what it's worth, I too have past memories of flying a not heading, assuming what I could see was what I should see and, really unforgivable, not checking my DI for gyro drift ("Donnington Approach, Golf ***, confirm runway in use is 27"? "Golf ***, Approach; runway in use is 27 and the only one we've got!). All good lessons and well learned from; and fortunately no infringements.

what specifically would a GPS change about the planning and execution of a flight to remove these errors

I don't think anybody mentioned "mandatory", but a GPS gives you constant guidance along a track.

It also provides a gross error check because you load your route into it and the route is displayed overlaying the appropriate bit of the map. It's possible to mis-program but very hard to do so and not spot the mistake at this stage.

Anyway, this is a QXC which under present regs is navigated with dead reckoning, so this isn't relevant as things stand. I think it should be brought into the PPL because human intellect will never get better, the training (in today's ATPL hour builder "just passin' through" climate) will never get better; so we will always get these big busts, and on the assumption (which may or may not be reasonable) that the powers to be would like to improve matters, something else has to be done. People will always jump on anybody suggesting this but TBH I don't see anybody having a better idea.

To be fair, I suggested earlier in this thread that a better safety case could be made for mandatory GPS rather than mandatory Mode S txp

I would vote against any use of GPS in PPL training.

The QXC is a VFR navigation exercise. If you can't do it safely you shouldn't pass your PPL; simple as that.

By all means buy a GPS as a back-up once you've got your PPL, but until you get your IMC or IR surely the chart must be your primary means of establishing your position? :confused:

Completely agree. However, navigation (and I speak as a Professional navigator, albeit marine) is (or should be) about the best use of all available information to verify position, course & track. That information should include all systems in the aircraft capable of providing information, such as GPS, radio nav aids etc. The theory that PPL nav training should be limited to compass stopwatch & chart nav only is IMHO, flawed.

PS IS it mandated anywhere that the QXC has to be navigated by DR?

The hardest thing for a student pilot about dead reckoning is not spotting features, roads and rivers per se, but the workload that comes with it.

If you let the GPS take that pressure away from the pilot, you are making the exercise much easier, which defeats the purpose of getting someone used to cockpit management/multitasking.

After all, multitasking is the most difficult thing about flying, if you take that away what's the point ?

The debate comes down to whether you are training pilots to reach a certain standard (in a syllabus drawn up largely in WW1), or training them to reliably fly from A to B.

Some interesting comments on here.

One particularly interesting one, though:
Why not? I'm shocked to read a comment like this from two experienced pilots (although it doesn't surprise me to read this from IO540!;)) I've done so, many times, and I teach my students to do it regularly.

I think the key thing which is missing from IO540's original statement is that the ded reckoning needs to be backed up by pilotage - i.e. looking out the window, positively identifying your position (with three unique features if possible), and having a good strategy for making adjustments to your heading if your track is not good. I taught these techniques to PPL students, and found that most of them combined it with track crawling and managed to navigate quite comfortably. I now teach it to CPL students, who all master it eventually, most of them sooner rather than later. I've used it navigate over most of England, a fair part of norther France and Belguim, most of Arizona and Florida, and small parts of California, so I'm pretty confident it works in most different types of terrain (although the type of terrain you need to use for the pilotage aspect does vary from one part of the world to another).

As for other issues raised on the thread, GPS is not the answer. I know a student who got lost on his PPL QXC in a G1000-equipped aircraft, even after his instructor (no, it wasn't me) suggested to him that if he took a quick look at his moving map screen whilst flying solo the CAA would never know. A gross error check would have helped the student in this case - but there is only so much information and so many techniques a student can take on board, and it may have been that this student's instructor decided that gross error checks are one technique too many for him to handle.

It certainly sounds, from the limited information we have, that he did everything right, though, calling for help when he realised he was lost.

Just my thoughts.

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

Its easy to get dyslexic with the headings. I had a student out of shawbury fly me on 012 instead of 120. I let it run as long as possible, we made the edge of the manchester zone!! Not bad when heading for Benson!! He has turned out ok, flying Hercules now (I think) and has made squadron leader!!

My opening line was that there were FIVE infringements of the Heathrow CTR yesterday. Just flicking through the log, I notice that one of those who cut the northwest corner was spoken to by the ATC supervisor. This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS".
GPS is all well and good if you understand fully how to use it.

A17

I would vote against any use of GPS in PPL training.

Quite right, in fact I would insist on chinagraph pencils and ban permanent markers and insist that all candidates handswing the prop, of a rag covered tail dragger with an evaporation cooled engine.

There are 3 simple words as to why GPS should not feature in PPL VFR navigation training:

"NO FIX POSSIBLE"


End of.

"NO FIX POSSIBLE"

Seems more appropriate to pilotage, based on this thread.

endof.

My opening line was that there were FIVE infringements of the Heathrow CTR yesterday. Just flicking through the log, I notice that one of those who cut the northwest corner was spoken to by the ATC supervisor. This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS". GPS is all well and good if you understand fully how to use it.

Yeah, it accounted for 20% of the busts :ugh:

WW Thruxton Sywell is a favourite QXC at WW I advoided it by doing WW Sywell Kemble. Reading is easy to spot look at the railway layout a very easy was ot working out where you are and there more distinctive from the air. (But you need to know your railways though)

MH 152
at least ten departures stopped; same number broken off; stacks held up. Thousands of passengers inconvenienced and 747's 777's etc forced into manoeuvres at low level possibly after long haul flights. The consequences of CTR infringements at major airports are great.
...I do agree with your point that GPS should not be part of PPL, GPS should always be x-referenced and not trusted as sole nav aid.
Best bet when flying in vicinity of Heathrow is calling units for listening watch/FIS, London FIS, SVFR, Thames radar, Farnbro, Southend. They may not prevent infringement but if it occurs, you'll be wearing a squawk that helps get a message to you to stop the infringement early. If unsure of position call emergency fixer service 121.5, that's what they are there for.

Really? What were the causes of the other four? ;)

Not GPS apparently. ;)

Pareto anyone?

I had to look that up, lol.

I bet you 60% of the violating pilots had GPS. No doubt there is a principle which describes a 60:40 result, and you know what it is :)

LHR has been done before. Primary problem is a stupid surface area.

Apart from that, FFF has nailed it quite well.

Feel free to expand further...