A passing thought on GPS nav....
 

Heard an interesting chat on London Centre yesterday.

A chap with 1 pax was on his way across the channel to the Channel isles in a PA22 when his GPS packed up. He called on 121.5 with unsure of his position, as he was obviously over the oggin. During the ensuing conversation he revealed he was blessed with a ..... wait for it ...... VOR onboard but didn't know how to use it. No chart, fix, DR position, drift calculation etc.

Some VERY patient radio transmissions from LC got the unluck chap VOR briefed and en-route towards the Jersey beacon when he cheerily chirped up that his GPS was back online now and all was hunky dorey.

An excellent service was provided by an outstanding controller on London Centre, well done to him. A, probably very relieved, pilot made it to the Channel Islands.

My point for discussion is that this was a good VMC, VFR day. How would you feel about doing a cross channel flight in a single engined aircraft with only the GPS as your primary navigation aid across featureless terrain/water. Equipped with navigational equipment but unable to use them, even in the event of an emergency.

My personal one would be to sit back, learn the DR nav and figure out what the VOR does if, as in this event, I may not be legally able to use it for IR as a PPL holder but it could tell me where the airfield is.

Your views :ok:

VORs
 

I have to agree... nothing wrong with VORs helping your nav, again as long as its not your sole means. Used that lots when I learnt in the states, but I must admit now it'd be a bit of a stab in the dark... seven years is a long time.

Mind you, after my experiences on a nav yesterday, I'm inclined to work on it. Took my dad on a sightseeinging and landaway trip. Set my gps to dim after 3 mins, trying to ween myself off it. result... I tapped the screen every 3 mins to bring it back up. I let my course vary far too much, whilst relying on the gps, and paying lip service to my plog.

Got to the landaway, fueled up, paid landing fee and got a coke. While I was enjoying the sunshine, it began to dawn on me that I wouldn't have the plane back in time for the club shutting up (grr... need my own plane!) so my circuitous route home had to go out the window. Gps had died. I'd expected that, but it back up battery pack was done too. Bugger. So planned a route back like a diversion. Had to draw lines on the map with the edge of my logbook as I'd not bothered to bring a ruler!

Turned out to be one of my most enjoyable flights so far. So relaxing. Everything went to plan, and I got to sit back aand enjoy a gorgeous evenings flying listening to all the IFR traffic around the Aldergrove zone. And some nice pics taken by my passenger.

Greeaat!!

Think I'll be keeping the gps in the bag next time. Charged of course!

Back to the original point... A VOR wouldnt have been able to guide me home, but having the knowledge meant i could've used 2 VORs to pinpoint my position. Its quite a lot of work for a vfr pilot like me but I should really be able to do it. I did it on my first flight test so I should have a try at it! Might surprise myself!

Hmm.. my view: A map is a great backup. It doesn't rely on electricity, magnetism, vacuums etc, and is virtually indestructable, and works at least a bit even in crummy weather. The concept of paperless cockpits should stop short of eliminating the map (and paper checklist), even if it's a four year old, very crumpled one tucked away somewhere under the sandwiches, water bottles and baggage on the rear seats or so. (No, I'm not advocating using out-of-date charts, but any out-of-date map is much much more useful than a failed GPS in such a situation.)

I wouldn't fly without one!

everyone knows, CHART first, gps as backup only, :ugh:

GPS is new technology, and will get you where you want to go.

VOR is old technology, but will still get you where you want to go.

MAP is very old technology, but will none the less get you where you want to go.

Personally I fly with, and can use all of the above, and the ADF, the the DME, etc etc etc...

Eggs? Basket?

The concept of primiary nav and backup nav is the wrong way of looking at it. It's all about using more than one means of nav, and cross checking them, and making sure that you are able to seemlessly change to using just one of them, if the other stops working.

dp

Chap in PA22 should be ashamed and grounded!!

This is exactly what I have been harping on about when it comes to GPS. Personally I think JAA/FAA whoever his licensing body is should throw the book at him.

Tin hat on.

So, for over-water transits, which shade of blue do you prefer for the expanse of the square-root-of-****-all features on the map? - the CAA 500K I always find a bit too electric blue, and the 250K *does* show icebergs and mermaids, but is almost always out of date...

Thats when a stop watch and compass come in handy, or VOR, NDB, DME if there are any in range. There really is no rocket science to good old navigation.

Too many gadgets
 

Allow me to repost the following very relevant anecdote, shamelessly lifted from an old thread over at the Military Forum:

I can believe that there could be people flying aircraft equipped with instruments they don't know how to use. I can believe that people might be using a GPS as their primary means of navigation - why not? I can even believe that some might get into the habit of not bothering to cross-check their position and using the GPS in isolation, especially if the GPS has always worked fine in the past. What I find incredible is that anyone would set off without a paper chart of the route!

There simply isn't enough information on a typical GPS moving map to plan a route and if anything isn't going to plan (weather, aeroplane, passengers, bladder, whatever) in-flight planning is going to be required.

It's a while since I did my PPL but I seem to remember having a bit tuition on basic VOR/DME nav.

I have also done lots and lots of over oversea flying and this would be my approach to a cross channel flight:

Prepare a chart which covers my route from my departure point, my coast out point on the English coast to my coast in point and arrival field in the Channel Isles. Get the winds for both the departure point and the arrival point. Calculate an average wind, plot it on a CRP 5, transpose my track and ground speed onto the chart. Calculate a mid point and, if required, a point of no return and an equal time point. Write on two minute markers based upon my ground speed. Why? To look for that mermaid again but more importantly to give me an accurate time scale as to when I can expect to see my destination. Fly, as accurately as possible, my planned heading to achieve my track, and my planned airspeed to achieve my groundspeed. As long as all goes well the margin of error at the other end should be a mile or two max. If all doesn't go well then I have an estimated position and an accurate time plot to know when I have missed my destination point.

Does that come familiar to most of you or am I running past the current PPL syllabus?
W2P

.. .. .. but if he kept aiming in the direction he was presumably pointing he would have run into Jersey zone radar and the French coast.

That long peninsular thing sticking out is a bit of a give away as are the CIs position relative to it.

One should always use TWO methods of navigation.

This kind of thing, involving the 3-letter word (GPS), is just a gift to the anti-modernisation crowd who work so hard to keep aviation in the Middle Ages.

If the pilot was navigating across the water using a VOR, and it packed up (which, given the condition of the average rental wreck, is pretty likely at some time, and I've had it happen to me), and reported it duff, it would not be reported here or anywhere else ;)

Quite right. I'm all for GPS (and VOR etc), but if the back-up navigation is to look out of the window, and the ground is featureless (such as ocean), then you should have worked out dead-reckoning tracks. That's why I say that dead-reckoning is not, er, dead.

Now, I wonder how many people that say they have no use for dead-reckoning actually have multiple navigation systems (and are practised in using them)?

In my view, this has nothing to do with GPS or VORs, but that the pilot flying VFR did not take the incredibly simple and unburdensome precaution of getting regular fixes with whatever nav method he was using (GPS, radio, pilotage, whatever) and marking those fixes with an X and the time on his chart...the chart he didn't have. Do that and getting lost is virtually impossible as you will always have an arc of probability.

Yes it would! It would have been reported here as supporting evidence by one of the hand-held-GPS-solves-everything-including-making-me-attractive-to-women brigade!

:ugh:

How about correct use of GPS FIRST and a chart as BACKUP....... :ugh:

The main thrust of this thread is not the age old 'should we trust GPS' debate. The aircraft I currently fly has 2 of the buggers which constantly update the INS, as long as the perf page says GPS Primary, I'm happy so please don't take me as an old ways are best lover :eek:

What made me curious was that there was indeed NO backup for the GPS and the pilot in question seemed to be having difficulty with the rudimendary details of the VOR beacon.

Should you really embark, with a passenger, on a long oversea/featureless terrain, leg without that simple, and for me obvious, secondary navagational backup.

:ok:

High Wing

The guy had to get a crash course from LC on how to use a VOR!!! so it has everything to do with the pilot not knowing the basics and relying on a GPS.

Bose-X

Do you not think it is advisable to learn how to use and rely on VOR's before a GPS? And then use the map as a backup.