Since I know just about every inch of the area around Tatenhill, from teaching zillions of trial lessons, does memory count as 'sufficent nav data'. I honestly would like to know. Just to be safe, I always take my out-of-date chart with me.

But one thing I really, really, really would like an answer to is how I've managed to get back to the airfield every time....with no hairs whatsoever on my chest!!!! :)

Basically because the user interfaces on all these devices are complete pants, so it's a question of "is it worth my while fiddling with all the knobs and buttons"? For some flights I decide it is, for others I decide it isn't.

So ... if I'm flying around the local area I might have a map on my lap, but I don't necessarily look at it. And that's about it for nav. NDB when it's time to go home, if the visibility is bad.

Further afield I might draw lines on the map, and then navigate using VORs and NDBs, which are vastly easier to programme than any GPS I've ever seen. I may or may not bother to switch the GPS on.

If I'm going somewhere I've never been before and the nav looks "interesting" then I will draw the lines on the map, navigate using VORs and NDBs, and turn on the GPS and programme the route into it and use it to check that I'm going where I intended.

But I don't do the whole hairy chested thing. I have to admit that if I've got both a DME and GPS counting down to the next turning point I don't bother to update ETAs and such on the paper plan.

There are still people who like the old map+compass+stopwatch method - same as there are people who like to fly WW1 biplanes while wearing leather caps and goggles. They are a part of the aviation scene as much as anybody else.

For the remainder, the GPS boat left the harbour best part of 10 years ago and is a done deal. You use the best tools available for the job.

Whirly, You bin dialled in to 327, ain't cher?

Regarding the authorities "violating" folk for having an out of date chart;

What happens when you rely on the latest CAA VFR chart and they omitted the extensive new EGCN airspace replacing an ATZ (which they did put on the earlier, adjoining one)? Or flew into the Stokenchurch mast (1184' amsl) which they reckoned had been pulled down not long back?

Thank goodness it hasn't got to the point where someone has had an incident and been taken to court over it, or worse.

My contention is that if 'steam powered' navigation were dropped from the PPL syllabus tomorrow and everyone received proper instruction on how to use a moving map GPS (including how to update the data base etc.) navigation errors, airspace intrusions etc. would drop by a factor of 10.

Yes, I know about the unreliability of the signal, all those jamming trials, the need to rely on Uncle Sam and all the rest of it, but it's not as if string and stopwatch navigation is exactly 100% reliable is it?

It's a no-brainer.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons then, if using a GPS is 100% legal along with other navigation data(maps or whatever), then would using one would be deemed as "cheating" for the CPL skills check, similar to using a calculator in a maths exam!! I think the answer is use whatever is available at your disosal for the skills check, and if the aircraft being used has a GPS fitted...use it, but check with your examiner first.
Don't get me wrong,I'm not against GPS's, I use both maps and a GPS,when available, if it helps with navigation then that's a good thing. However remember to look outside at the weather etc, failing to divert if the weather conditions are below minima is a fail.

Yes, the best reason for always having a chart available is the bad weather / diversion plan.

How many "local/local" flyers would cope without a chart if their home airfield was suddenly closed?

I am sure some people would be quite glad to be "violated" ;)

I can't answer the JAA CPL but the GPS is certainly allowed to a large degree in the FAA PPL and CPL. In fact it is effectively mandatory - because the examiner will expect the candidate to demonstrate operation of all equipment installed in the aircraft. When I did the FAA PPL in a rented plane with a Garmin 430, I had to get the Garmin 430 sim and learn how to load a route into it.

From a report from someone I know who did the JAA CPL recently, GPS was not used for most or all of it; instead the checkride was a very precise dead reckoning demonstration. Seems totally pointless to me, in any likely CPL usage context.

As regards paper backups, sure, I and most others print out a plog, and have printouts of enroute sections (if not the entire route chart section) and the approach plates for dep, dest and diversions.

I would not rely on totally electronics means for stuff like plates - although I have done flights like that when I got shafted by some Italian airport which would not sell me avgas, etc, and I had to hurriedly replan an IFR route elsewhere, and in that case I didn't have much choice. On long trips I carry a portable printer but having a printing capability in the aircraft gets a bit silly.

This kind of debate always gets a bit meaningless once one gets away from base. For example I always buy the 1:500k CAA chart and it lives in the plane, to hand. But if flying VFR further away, the chart situation quickly gets quite messy and one ends up carrying only what is likely to be actually required for the route. If IFR, the airways charts (Jepp or Aerad) are practically unusable in the cockpit so different methods are used anyway.

With regard to JAA CPL, use of GPS is not allowed for the main navigation part but is allowed for the diversion exercise (as is radio nav, looking out of the window and I Follow Roads - anything goes!).

Cheers

Whirls

Whirlygig

Well we knew that, or if we didnt, we would have guessed.

Absolutely no reason at all why a CPL should demonstrate any mastery of "modern" avionics, as I said earlier new fangled technology, waste of space.

Mode S, thats what we want, now there you have a properly demonstrated safety case, unlike GPS where you can perfectly well avoid CAT infringements by keeping a good look out.

Depends what your "home airfield" is ... given that mine is Cambridge I do rather feel that I could find any of Bourn, Duxford or Stansted without anything other than looking out of the window and following roads. I appreciate that there are parts of the world where it isn't quite that easy.

(And if anyone is reading this who really doesn't know the answer ... bottom line, scream for help on 121.5 and they will point you at a runway.)

Then come on here and get screamed at yourself.... :E

(Like the unfortunate other Wombat).

Lets face facts here, folks.

The idea is to make general aviation safer.

GPS does this, by increasing pilots situational awareness.

Now, some old fuddy-duddy pilots say phooey...GPS is no good.

Well, this is one old (26K flying hours) pilot who who says....phooey, to these non-GPS believers.

IE:
Use the equipment you have in your airplane to your absolute best advantage, and IF that equipmet is a good GPS receiver/navigator....you are one smart GA pilot.:ok:

Quote ! Gertrude the wombat

Basically because the user interfaces on all these devices are complete pants, so it's a question of "is it worth my while fiddling with all the knobs and buttons"? For some flights I decide it is, for others I decide it isn't.

You realy spout some rubbish, you know what they say about a bad workman blaming the tools.

I agree that in some cases the GPS is not the approprate tool for navigation but blaming the interface is just an excuse for lack if "book time" with the unit that you have fitted

If the applicant says that he knows how to use the installed GPS, I let him use it during the diversion on the second leg of the PPL Skill Test. Also the VOR/DME and ADF. But only after first working out track/dist and hdg/eta by conventional MDR.

After 5-10 min flying the diversion planned by 'conventional' MDR techniques, the confidence the student gets in seeing that his MDR agrees with the GPS is well worth the effort!

No reason not to move with the times, but I do think that there is some need for the student to understand the basic principles. Navigation is the worst taught part of PPL training; most new FIs confuse the student with pointlessly excessive RT work and encourage too much map reading.

In any case, navigation can't be difficult if navigators can do it!

Having stopped flying in the mid 90's, and started again this year, the single biggest change I see is the introduction of GPS (together with a wheelie bin full of extra regulation).
Nav to me was always common sense, but now I don't even need that!!

Oh well, it's so reassuring to know the JAA training is bang up to date. An IFR pilot, single pilot IFR, is really going to love the lat/long coordinate option. Wonderful stuff - and a great safety enhancement, plugging in lat/long coordinates.

A £50 camping-shop GPS will give you lat/long and a waypoint relative bearing - almost totally useless for aviation.

Evidence ... ? Photo ... ? Calendar ..... ?

JD
;)

And you have how many decades experience, exactly, in being paid to design user interfaces?

Not accusing you off spouting rubbish Gertrude but I have certainly never had a problem with any of the aviation GPS units that I have come across. I have a panel mount Garmin and I find the interface simple enough to operate as do I find the 496 and the 696 that I have.

Perhaps the problem more lies in your lack of experience with this kit rather than it not being fit for purpose?