VOD80 like Olderndirt I also learned to fly when the Radio Range was the Nav aid for airways.

As the years passed I morphed with the aids as they became available, up to and including the magic glass cockpit fly by wire airplanes.

After over half a century flying for a living I am now semi retired and find these debates to be interesting.

As to relying on pencil, map, magnetic compass and a watch in today's complex airspace I feel it is poor airmanship...period.

By the way for what ever it is worth I am into my 55th year as a pilot and never had to fill out an accident report.

Sacré bleu or even merde alors!
 

OK, I surrender!

I've the feeling that I've fallen into some parallel universe.

To navigate with only a map and a compass and to have this called "poor airmanship"! :eek:

I think everything gets mixed up. The airlines need GPS because they have constraints that can't be satisfied without this. But, it isn't just something from Transair. It's a fully monitored redundant system, integrated into the aircraft and into the airlines' operations. I've not been involved directly in the nav systems (I was doing the warning systems) but I worked in the same department. It was not a trivial subject.

To think that, even two, independent GPS installed with zero integrity monitoring and uncontrolled databases coupled to ad-hoc processes is a sign of good airmanship or that it can, just like that, approach the level of performance achieved in the "professional world" is, to my mind, a questionable proposition! :=

There's no denying that it can "paper over the cracks" of someone's abilities such that their probability of encountering a sticky situation is reduced. But the corollary is likely to be that the probability of a stickier outcome once the sticky situation is encountered is increased - IMHO! :p

And, I've just spent a little time reading the "What to do if you're lost" thread as well. It seems like a very passionate subject.

Sciolistes:
Sorry! Some people are just dead unreliable!

I had a friend in my Auster days who got a job as an airline pilot after being in the air force and he had great fun doing VFR stuff in an A320 - apparently lots of non-precision approaches in the eastern Mediterranean!

I agree with your position - quoted below with the additional bolded text from me:

Cheers!

The guy who said word to this effect (in today's complex airspace) has over 25,000 flying hours, including crossing the Atlantic in piston engined flying boats.

In the past, he has shared his knowledge freely on this forum and some of us listen to him and reflect on what he says, for he has forgotten more about flying than many of us here have yet learned.

?
 

What does that mean?

With all of the threads on GPS seemingly degenerating into this kind of mess, with two very polarised points of view, it is probably not worth continuing.

I confess, when I asked the question, I thought that there would be some light hearted chat - I never thought for a moment that it could become so serious!

I've read some of Chuck's posts and enjoyed them - but struggle to see how anyone's previous experience allows them to become an authority on minimum requirements to get VFR RNP.

I'm here to learn and will listen to everyone. My experience is 250 odd hours of day VFR SEP, almost all of them cross country in the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands and so on, half in my Auster (wouldn't fly "hands off") the rest in various Robins and Pipers. This was also in all sorts of weather, some of which was worse than forecast and which needed flights replanned "on the fly". All without any nav aids (none of us used them in those days) and none with any problems.

I'm surprised, not having flown for ten years, that there can be such a strong belief that it is difficult to maintain situational awareness without GPS.

Is GPS nice to have? For sure! Is it pretty? Yes. Is it easier? Of course! Is it the only way to fly? That is the question that I sort of asked (light heartedly, imprecisely - mea culpa!) and I really don't feel that this is the case.

Perhaps I'll find differently when I'm finally reprocessed... :bored:

VOD80

Times have changed. Don't give up your kneeboard, I won't give up mine either.
But just as you needed to get a tool to help you hear better and I had to get specs so that I could see properly, the tools required in the increasingly crowded and controlled airspace are not absolutely essential but they sure can help a lot and make your flying less stressful, more accurate and enjoyable. Having one more dial or little screen added to your scan isn't really a big deal. Kind of fun doing the prep on a GPS as well as on paper.

By the by, you can get your charts laminated and use a pen on them that can be erased easily. Map will last for the period that it's current instead of falling apart at the creases. 3M make a great spray adhesive that you can use on the back of the expired charts... great insulation for the shed wall.... :)

I disagree.

Some of us are saying that GPS forms a part of the toolkit and should be considered for use in an integrated nav solution, not really a polarised view, more of a common sense view, I would have thought. Anyone using only GPS is also demonstrating poor airmanship in my opinion and that would be a polarised position.

Some others are saying they prefer traditional methods.

The irony is that I bet all the posters talking integrated solution are pretty hot on the concepts and practices of traditional methods.

Anyone who cannot maintain situational awareness without a GPS should probably not be in command of an aircraft, but having such a useful too can reduce the workload and stress considerably and if used properly, make more time for looking out, which is pretty important OCAS.

Codger says it nicely in his post.

As to 'What does that mean?', it means that Chuck Ellsworth has spent a lot of time learning about flying and is worth listening to. Nothing more or less.

Your attempt to start off light humour on this subject was sadly doomed before it started, due to historical threads, not your fault and please don;t take it personally.

VOD80 the opinion that I offered regarding flying safely is based on common sense.

In today's very complex airspace with many aircraft flying in said complex airspace it is very important that you know where you are and where you are heading at all times.

To compound the difficulty of flying in these busy airspace's one can encounter low visibilities due to air polution among other factors.

Depending on situational awareness with only a map and compass and time and distance is not good airmanship when for a very small money investment you can have a portable GPS which is more accurate position wise than you can relate to by looking at the ground even on a severe clear day.

It is not my intention to demean your ideas about navigating nor do I want to down play your map reading ability or flight planning ability. I am only trying to point out that not using a GPS is taking an unneccesary risk when there is no valid reason to take said risk.

I can remember chugging across the swamp at a couple hundred feet between Nitchequon and Gagnon with a Beaver on floats and wishing I had something other than a map to navigate with. ;)

Hello!

Times have changed indeed and maybe it is time to give up the kneeboard. In the company where I fly commercially it is company policy not do do any paperwork below 10.000ft (above which there are no uncontrolled flights in Germany). This means, we put the kneeboards aside from receiving the T/O clearance until reaching FL100 and devote all spare capacity looking out for traffic. Even this way, I alone had three TCAS events during the last six months .

Greetings, Max

VOD80: Really?

Hello Max,

Yes, really!

I thought this was a "private flying" spot in PPRUNE. I give the position from the prespective of a Day VFR SEP pilot, outside of controlled airspace for the most part.

I really find it hard to believe that you think that maintaining situational awareness for people like me requires GPS.

For you, professional pilot, of course. You have considerations like BRNAV, PRNAV, RNPx as well as company motivations like productivity.

Me, pleasure pliot, I can be as inefficient as I like! And, I maintain that I'm sure I can maintain situational awareness without GPS.

This does not mean that GPS is no good, that nobody should use GPS or that I don't like GPS.

And about these TCAS events. Were these TAs or RAs? Were they VFR traffic infringing controlled airspace or traffic in the open FIR? And how would GPS have helped the situation?

Why so much emotion?

Me, pleasure pliot, I can be as inefficient as I like!

Interesting line of thinking for a pilot.


And, I maintain that I'm sure I can maintain situational awareness without GPS.

No one has said you can't, as long as you fly in areas that are relatively easy to navigate in ...and of course in good visibility.

Real Beaver pilots don't need maps, they know the route! - such that they can even fly it in fog! (I've seen them take off but declined to go for a ride until the visibility had improved.)

Hello again Chuck,

This is really a quick answer because I'm just off out for the evening. GPS is "effort reduction", not "risk reduction" - from the viewpoint of the ATS. Now, I'm not a specialist in this area and I'm applying my system engineering pronciples to this problem and I'll accept any deeper expalinations... The ultimate objective for the ATS would be something like making sure that us VFR pilots do not bring down an A380 loaded with passengers.

To that end the ATS is designed to keep us apart. There are risks that VFR pilots are going to get lost, so the "system" is designed to cope with this - Class A airspace, air traffic controllers, TCAS and so on.

There are a number of "consequences" (a component of "risk") from an infringement, and each has a probability associated. To illustrate the point, lets invent some numbers - Infringe airspace and the probability that you get called by ATC is going to be close to 1, that you get a letter from the CAA, probably 0.5, that you cause an aitrcraft to deviate 1 in 100 (0.01). That we bring down an A380, we need to have a "system" probability of something like 1*10E-9 per flight hour. This probability needs to cover everything that could conceivably happen, including the GPS equiped plane that does a DCT straight across an ILS.

GPS can reduce pilot work load. GPS can be more accurate - but does a VFR pilot necessarily need that accuracy? Are there no other acceptable means of compliance?

Maybe full of holes, but I hope you get the general thrust of the message!

Best regards,

T

Hello!

I can not see a major distinction between private and professional pilots. We all do the same "work", we share the same airspace, we have the same problems. There are days, when I am a private pilot too and there are days, when I teach people to become private pilots, that's why I read this part of the forum and a couple of flying magazines with great interest. It is like on the road: The same road is used by "private" and commercial drivers, and if I (private) collide with a taxi cab (professional) we both die, so we better should have talked to each other beforehand...

It certainly does not require GPS, but GPS takes most of the "burden" of navigation from the pilot and frees his attention/resources for other duties.

This is exactly what I can't believe. Based on my own experience. Only yesterday, I did a two-hour VFR training flight with a CPL student. Visual navigation only with ad-hoc tasks to be performed (like the typical transition from instrument flight to visual flight for landing on a VFR-only airfield: You cancel IFR at some point and have to find your way into the traffic pattern by reference to ground features, often in marginal weather). Based on the discussion here, I observed my student a little closer than I usually would have done: She never - not once in two hours of flying! - looked anywhere but either on her map or straight down to the ground trying to identify railway tracks, rivers and roads (at one point, we were off by over 10 NM and she could still match the ground to the map, but that's a different story). We could have flown straight into an airship and she only would have noticed the very moment everything around her got dark (if it is dark inside an airship?). And mind you, she's not a private pilot who flies once every couple of weeks, but is on an integrated ATPL course flying every day for the last half year.

I've had both TA (1) and RAs (2). Two of them happened in class F airspace (don't know if this exists anywhere else but in Germay - it allows instrument approaches and departures into airfields/airports that have no proper control zone - the lo-cost airlines like to use this kind of airfield because it saves them a lot of fees...). Especially in this kind of mixed VFR/IFR environment, the principle of "see and be seen" is very important and any unnecessary distraction from looking out is potentially dangerous.

Maybe, because my life is at stake? In another post, you calculate the risks/probabilites of colliding with other traffic. My calculation goes like this: The more hours you fly, the higher the risk to collide with someone. And because I fly more hours than most private pilots, the only way to reduce my risk is to make others aware of these risks and to show them ways to reduce them. For their benefit and for mine.

Greetings, Max

One more thing to think about: If GPS would have been around when Mr. Auster built his aeroplanes, and he would have fitted one in each of them (like he did with compass, ASI, altimeter and RPM indicator) - would anybody ever have questioned its usefulness?

VOD80:

There is an old saying.

" You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Could be, but I preferred a map. :D

Here ya go.

Yeah, but....

There are A LOT of places on earth, some within an hour's flying of where I live in Ontario, that you'd have to be very sharp with the chart to always know where you are. It becomes just about completely constant map reading, to the point that it nearly interferes with good airmanship, to always know your location without navaids. Fortunately, there's less traffic to watch for, and hardly any controlled airspace to manage. Prior to GPS I flew these areas in not so great VFR, and realized that if I lost my location, I would never get it back. All those lakes look the same!

I once tracked outbound for 93 miles south from NairobiKenya. After that, I lost the VOR signal, and with no topographical reference at all, I flew for 4 hours (Twin Otter). All I did was hold the last heading, there were no other navaids at all at our altitude, and nothing else to refer to on the ground, it all looked the same! I eventually came to Lake Malawi, and was 25 miles off coarse, but in 500 miles, that's not too bad! Had GPS existed, I would have been much closer.

But, skilled map reading ability aside, there's no good excuse for not availing one's self with reasonable navigational capability. I can hardly think that anyone who can afford and has the skill to fly, cannot make a GPS a part of their good pilotage. Sure, I fly around locally without using one (but I still have it), within 25 miles of here, I really do know where I am!

To me. it's sort of like getting into a Cessna 182RG, and saying well, I'll not bother retracting the wheels, 'cause I never did on the regular 182 I used to fly! Advances are made, we should make good use of them!

Pilot DAR

Max,

There is a huge difference between the average commercial pilot and the average private pilot - about 30,000 feet, 300 kts, several thousand hours to name but a few. More over of course you student spent most her time struggling with the nav - she was only learning and the lookout is your job as the instructor.

The GPS is a great tool. I don't think anyone is disputing that providing it is used properly. I have seen how easy it is for two commercial pilots to get suckered into a black box in a cockpit. The private pilot will be equally or even more susceptable to that.

The problem with VFR nav is that a) it is poorly taught (instructors think the student will get a GPS when they qualify), b) it takes practice, c) it takes planning and d) people insist on those horrible half mil charts. It is not for the idle or the impatient.

Similarly GPS is a) not taught, b) takes practice to use c) takes planning on the ground and d) uses those horrible Jeppesen charts. Not the solution for the idle and impatient.

There are parts of the world where GPS is more or less essential - where there are few ground features. There are parts of the world, like all the UK and I guess much of Europe where there are sufficient visual references for VFR nav.

Should private flying stop if GPS is switched off? Should we stay on the ground when the military are playing at jamming? Was Chuck exercising bad airmanship by flying in the days before GPS? OF course not. GPS is not a prerequisite for flight. It is an excuse for not teaching for nav properly.

If you can VFR nav properly there is no need for a GPS. If the viz is poor, don't go - you are of course doing it for fun. Where is the fun in groping around in poor viz (with or without GPS) at £x00/hr?

No GPSs are "installed" without intergrity monitoring. Every TSO'd panel mount has RAIM and most have RAIM with Fault Detection and Exclusion. Every TSO'd panel mount I know of has a database supplied by Jepp or by Garmin from Jepp. Both these hold Type 2 LoAs showing the same conformity to Do200A/ED76 as airline database suppliers.

GA GPS installations frequently fly to a more demanding level of performance simply because the US now has more WAAS approaches than ILS - this is more demanding than any enroute/terminal RNP application I can think of. In Europe, the most demanding is P-RNAV (RNP1) which, ironically, the GA fleet with its fairly homogenous GNS430/530 kit can conform to more easily than many older airliners with legacy FMS.

Sorry VOD80, what ever your point about GPS is, trying to make out that GA IFR GPS is inadequate is not helping your cause.

Well yes. As you have found, the mere suggestion that GPS is not a necessary tool to fly perfectly safely and accurately prompts derision, strange comments alluding airliner ops and shameless attempts at humiliation.

The posts about having one's head stuck in a map suggest the execution of fundamentally bad technique.

Sadly, I agree with VOD80, whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line. In that regard GPS has a lot in common with Map/Watch/Pencil VFR in that it is badly trained, planned and implemented.

And round and round this argument goes......


Sadly, I agree with VOD80, whenever I see somebody using GPS, it is head down and a near constant effort to bracket the line.

Here is a picture of the GPS I mounted in the Husky.

Sure I could fly it head down while using the GPS but not for long as the Husky does not have an inverted fuel and oil system.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...h/P1020479.jpg

and

Are two of the most important statements made in this thread. GPS, appropriately used, is an effective means of assuring suitable position awareness. It is not the only way, however, and there is a constant underlying responsibility placed upon every VFR pilot, that navigation be correctly accomplished with visual reference to the outside world. GPS does not count for this.

Too many times, I've climbed into the cockpit with a "new" pilot, who immediately started pulling out equipment from a flight bag, and plugging in wires everywhere. The look of shock on his face, when I said "let's do it without" just to remind him that there is an underlying responsibility to be able to.

An oldtimer flew me 100 mile recently so I could pick up a nordo aircraft. As we were chatting about using GPS for VFR trips, his quit. I laughed, and looked at mine - it had quit too. I pulled out my other little Garmin, and it would not come up either. We looked at each other and laughed, because we knew we'd have to get where we were going the "old way", and dug out a chart. Problem was, the only reference I had to the location we were going was the logged waypoint in my GPS, which was now inaccessable to me. Now it was winter, everything looked very different. Having memorized the location by what crops were found in the nearby fields was no longer of use! I found the private strip first time, but that was just luck, not good navigation!

Use GPS as a reassurance, but don't get caught not being able to find your way without it. That means new pilots; learn good chart navigation techniques. If your instructor cannot teach you, ridicule him/her, and find someone who can!

Pilot DAR

I took along my car sat-nav today on a two hour flight around Kent and East Sussex just for fun. To my surprise I found it quite useful to confirm position on occasion. Mostly I was navigating using Memory Map blown up charts. So no purple line to follow and cost me not a penny in extra kit.

Looking outside the window? Absolutely - else what was the point of the flight?

Having said all that though - when I got home and downloaded the track from the basic walker type Garmin I keep in my flight bag behind the seat - I found I had been just a hair's breadth from the edge of Rochester's ATZ!

Incidentally, a lovely day for flying despite the pessimistic forecast.

Bogeymen and teddybears...
 

Hi all! I'm back from a weekend away.

Interesting to see a bit more depth to the conversation. Still lots of different opinions but very little consensus!

It seems that "controlled air space" is some sort of bogeyman and "GPS" is the teddybear that is used for comfort!

Thanks for the discussion, I’ll tie up some loose ends and then I’m out! Happy magenta lines! :ok:

With all due respect, Pilot DAR, you mix up your metaphors.

To use the same metaphor, I would have said that "I like to fly fixed gear planes from A to B" to which the “professional” pilot crowd would have answered "it's completely ridiculous, you look stupid, it's less efficient and you're not taking advantage of modern advances" and so on. Apart from that, always a pleasure to read your posts.

The rest is quite interesting as well.

421C tells me that:

OK. I take your word for it. But, last time I looked, my friend's plane had three GPS "installed" (in case there is a special meaning in the ANO/FAR/JAR etc for "installed"!). One is a Garmin 100 AVD that hasn't had a database update in at least 10 years. The other is something like a Garmin 76, similarly on its original database and the last is a 496, roughly a year old.

Not sure what "my cause" is, but I think that if you're telling me that the triple redundant system I mentioned above is equivalent to a Garmin 530/430 setup, or that any time someone cellotapes a GPS to the yoke that it's the same... I'm slipping into the parallel universe again!

I'm interested in day VFR SEP flying and I've never pretended that the way I fly (day VFR SEP, just in case you forget) could be applied to RNP1 (or RNP0.5/RNP0.3 and such like as are following).

I suspect that the same applies to the Auster pilot identified above (the post seems to have gone now) where he is too cheap to get his altimeter replaced and uses altitude information from his GPS. How much is he likely to spend on keeping his GPS up to date? I don't know what kind of GPS, whether it is GPS altitude or baro altitude but - what an interesting attitude. Kind of makes me want to deny ever having been interested in Austers!

What next indeed, "What Next". I wonder again, if we're talking about the same thing. Your mental model of airspace seems incorrect. There is separation between different types of traffic. Airways are Class A, big airports are Class A, others are Class D and so on. We (day VFR SEP) are not allowed in. We're kept separated from the others. Unless we ask, in which case we may be allowed in. "May", because it is conditional. But, this is irrespective of GPS.

Same thing for your TA/RA story. This has (as far as I can see) nothing to do with GPS and everything to do with "transponder" - it's a bit further down the stack - and you should be happy that your three TA/RA events were between aircraft equiped with such!

Class F is open to VFR pilots. No clearance required. So, if you had TA/RA events in Class F, this is a sign that two sets of "see and avoids" failed (to some extent). Again, unless you show me otherwise, GPS is irrelevant. Also irrelevant that lo-cost airlines flies in Class F airspace. This might be a justification for reclassification of the airspace into Class D, but that is a separate discussion.

Some fundamental misconceptions there.


Just to finish, a little word on efficiency for Chuck. In your haste to come and beat me about the head :) I think you tripped up over the meaning of the word efficiency. Do you mix it up with “imprecise”? Efficiency is just a measure of the conversion of an input into an output. Think "miles per gallon" in car terms.

To be interested in Austers is to be a worshipper at the altar of inefficiency. Mine would carry 190kg 285nm using 110 litres of fuel in 3 hours. I could land with one hour’s fuel in reserve. The C172 I would like to eventually get would the following: 302kg 285nm using 90 litres of fuel over 2.75 hours (again with reserves of 1hour). With some simple figure of merit, that makes the C172 twice as efficient as the Auster.

I deliberately chose the less efficient solution for romantic (and economic, to be honest) reasons.

I used to fly between Toulouse and Gloucester. The great circle distance is 530nm. I used to fly a distance of 630nm. In this case, it was a reluctance to trust my engine over the 70nm channel and a desire to reduce risk of having to learning to swim!

I used to fly at about 3000 feet when I could probably have got better efficiency by going up higher, but I preferred the view lower down. I flight plan for a couple of hours on paper when I could have got more efficiency using a computer for 15 minutes.

And so on and so on. Loads of conscious decisions to be less efficient than I could have been. But, in my opinion, no discernable impact on flight safety (for a day VFR SEP…)

Some advise on keeping your head outside
 

For the Garmin GPSmap 296 and similar, I would advise against the use of the (akward) Garmin yoke mount. I use a bean bag mount to put the GPS on top of the glareshield. Helps to keep your eyes outside and sattelite signal reception is very good without using the patch type antenna.

Interesting reading concerning the use of GPS in the cockpit can be found at http://http://www.cockpitgps.com/. The document is certainly worth a small donation.

To me it seems pretty obvious a GPS is only a tool assisting you with your navigation. A GPS will not teach you navigation skills and neither will an ADF or a VOR receiver or a map!

Also: learn how to use your tools efficiently. GPS simulators and training courses are available and needed because unfortunately most user manuals coming with GPS units are very much reference oriented and not task oriented.

I distrust built-in GPS units and always use my personal GPS because that is the unit I know and trust: recency of the geo database, additional waypoints I entered, routes I defined and so on.

Have fun flying whatever your preferred nav tools might be!

BTW: you are carrying the most recent version of that VFR map aren't you ;)

Just to finish, a little word on efficiency for Chuck. In your haste to come and beat me about the head I think you tripped up over the meaning of the word efficiency. Do you mix it up with “imprecise”? Efficiency is just a measure of the conversion of an input into an output. Think "miles per gallon" in car terms.

I am sorry you have taken my comments as an effort to " beat you about the head " VOD80.

You will note I prefaced my first post with the statement I hesitated to enter this discussion.

I apologize for having done so as my first feelings about your attitude was correct, you did not start this discussion to learn, you already seem to know it all.

Chuck,

I don't know why you feel so strongly about this. As far as I know, I haven't called you any names or anything like that. I try to understand the position of (the collective "you" of all the people who don't agree with me) but I don't seem to be able to get past the name calling.

The paragraph you quote above is an example.



Perhaps I don't speak English as good as I should but that comes across as a criticism - which I gently (spot the smily?) called "beating about the head". I figured you misunderstood what I meant by inefficiency and tried to explain what I mean by "inefficiency".

You take that to mean that I "know everything already"!

I think - I don't know because I don't have my licence back yet - that I can fly cross country without a GPS. I base that on previous experience. I want to understand why everyone feels that the GPS is so indispensible. Is this something that I need to learn? I haven't heard what I would call a compelling reason to abandon my previous position.

Because of this, I've been called grossly negligent, lacking airmanship, stuck in the horse and buggy age and various other things, not only by you but by various others as well.I don't recall anyone "teaching" me, apart from the expression of some opinions that it's to do with controlled airspace.

I'm no stranger to the technology that goes into aircraft. It doesn't take a genius to work out for whom I work. I spent a large part of my working life doing research into computer architectures and we were often denied the luxury of a specious argument, even though it could simplify life enormously! :)

So, I like to ask questions, I like to measure the arguments and, based on what I hear from those who know more than I, I change my position. Basically, you're suggesting that unless I accept your opinion unconditionally, I know everything...

As Sciolistes said:
How unfortunately true :uhoh:

O.K. it would appear that what I have been trying to say has been misunderstood.

My message is all pilots should avail themselves of all the aids available for flight that can be had and or used and are within the financial reach of all pilots.

Portable GPS is one of these aids, the use of which greatly enhances situational awareness.

As an example of how easy it is to make a decision based on being able to navigate by using basic ded-reckoning navigation rather than take the time to use a modern nav aid, find a copy of Todays Pilot, May 2008.

There is a story there of how using that assumption can really go wrong.

The story is about how I got lost in the Arctic.

Chick writes:

I agree, adding that a pilot should be trained and must be able to navigate without depending on the GPS magenta line but using it as a cross check.

Last month I crossed Europe VFR in an unfamiliar complex aeroplane with marginal weather.

No moving map GPS, only an old "go to" handheld, used to crosscheck VOR and plog headings. Navigation itself was not an issue, but I would have appreciated an instrument that warned me if I was busting airspace (nothing in the post so far) since I was skimming around many ATZs and ZITs and ground references weren't always easly available.

In fair weather blue sky conditions I would not have felt the need for it, having flown many long distance flights without a GPS and enjoying using map, watch and compass.

I agree, adding that a pilot should be trained and must be able to navigate without depending on the GPS magenta line but using it as a cross check.

If the regulatory body in the country that you received your private pilots license did not stipulate that you be taught basic navigation using a map, compass and a watch and insured you in fact did understand same then the country you live in must be truly primitive.

I should know better than get into these discussions for the simple reason it is a no win waste of time.

Hello!

Indeed.

Are you suggesting that I better give my ATPL and instuctor ratings back?

Not in my part of the world. And since you wrote in one of your posts that you are flying in Germany too, you may find it useful to familiarise yourself wilth the airspace structure here (Die Luftraumstruktur in Deutschland). We have many airways that go through class E airspace and where "see and avoid" is crucial because (for some reason unknown and uncomprehensible to me), transponders are not mandatory equipment for all aircraft, and therefore air traffic control is unable to provide separation and traffic information.

I am happy about it.

My TCAS events all took place within the traffic patterns of aerodromes with class F airspace and mixed VFR/IFR traffic (like the one here: http://www.edty.de/en/pilot_informat...edty191bam.pdf ) which is marked clearly both on the approach plates and on the VFR charts.
They were caused by aroplanes flying right through these traffic patterns at low level. Had these pilots used GPS, then they might have been aware of the proximity of an aerdrome and would have stayed clear of the traffic pattern. Had these guys looked outside for traffic, then they could have avoided to fly on collision courses with us.

I don't think this is a separate discussion. I think that this will be one of the consequences of people not using the most adequate navigation aids and becoming a threat to others in the process. For every TCAS event we have to file a report with the authority. Three in my case, but I do not often operate in and out of uncontrolled airfields commercially. Others do it a dozen times every day and they file their daily report. Sooner or later, airspace will become even more regulated than it is now and the last remining spots of "open FIR" will be gone. Not that I care much, because I don't fly for recreation a lot, but I still would consider it a loss for all of us. An unnecessary one.

Greetings, Max

Win?
 

Chuck Ellsworth:
What are you trying to win, Chuck?

Is it, in your opinion, indispensable (as in crucial and fundamental) to have and use a GPS for VFR navigation? It seems to be the case. Is it, in the opinion of any civil aviation authority in the world, a prerequisite for safe VFR navigation? Not so far as I know.

Have you, in an articulate manner, explained why I (I don’t want to speak for anyone else here) should, without any justification and against the feelings/knowledge/experience of all the civil aviation authorities of the world, adopt your position?

Or, have you said that someone who doesn’t adopt your position is lacking in airmanship, is stuck in the days of the horse and buggy, is a horse that is taken to the water that won’t drink, is someone who knows everything, has an interesting attitude for a pilot… amongst other things?

Would you consider that name-calling like this is the manifestation of someone who has more experience and knowledge than all of the civil aviation authorities of the world put together? Now, if I were to try your tactics on you, what would be your feelings? What would be your opinion of the intellectual capability of someone who resorted to these tactics?

Hello again, Max!
 

OK Max, hello again!

This air space discussion is about the following quote.

The only good example I find in a short search is the referenced document. http://www.egelsbach-airport.com/download/EDFE_HPA.pdf There is a slide that shows the IFR arrivals and departures for Frankfurt. If we use the “same road”, it is only after we have been invited onto it and then under the careful eye of the airspace owner.

But, this is not really the object of the discussion. It’s interesting but irrelevant to this thread, which is about the utility/necessity of GPS for VFR navigation. You, presumably with a GPS and a company policy of “no paperwork below 10,000ft”, still enter into conflict with other traffic. You do not see this traffic until your TCAS tells you about it.

If you are in Class E, you are both responsible for separation. How would GPS help?

What I learned from a GPS thread...
 

So, after this long thread, what have I learned about GPS in a VFR application (this is my take on it, and not a copy paste of anyone’s particular point of view).

Here, “could” represents something where the stated benefit is not guaranteed and where the opposite result might occur under certain circumstances. I think one thing would cover the three points below - workload reduction.

• It’s a tool that could aid in VFR navigation (here “aid” in the sense of back-up to non-electronic means)

• It’s a tool that could aid in maintaining situational awareness in the airspace that we use

• It’s a tool that could broaden the operational envelop for VFR pilots (reduced visibility, snow covered terrain, featureless terrain…) – but what happens if GPS is lost while in that situation? A little bit like sending babies swimming with armbands. Great while they stay on but what happens if they come off? If the pilot’s not good enough to go without GPS…

Does VFR GPS give all of this for free?

Some interesting sites (American, mainly IFR, but which illustrate some of the issues which I see surrounding GPS):

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=16064 similar kind of discussion to the one here, but with the added spice of someone inventing home made “ILS” approaches by creating waypoints 500ft underground :eek:

http://aviationmentor.*************/2006/12/flying-in-alphabet-soup.html an interesting discussion on GPS approaches which highlights how something can seem simple but for which workload can increase enormously, especially because of the user interface

http://www.caa.govt.nz/publicinfo/GPS_speech.htm The Kiwi point of view on VFR GPS, from around 10 years ago but raises quite interesting points in a very pragmatic manner.

I personally think VFR GPS doesn’t give anything for free. I don’t think that anyone could just get a GPS and go. As many have stated, there needs to be formal training on its use, its performance and its limitations. Another PPL ground exam? My take on the negatives:

• There are performance issues (complex user interfaces, database currency…)

• There are reliability issues (have you looked at the electrical power supply system on a GA aircraft, for example?)

• There could be, in my opinion, an insidious tendency to delegate responsibility to the machine, for the pilots to find themselves out of the loop. (Cue Iggy Pop, The Passenger… Oh the passenger, he rides and he rides…)

Fade to black.

This one goes round and round.

It's the old traditionalist v. modernist debate.

It got killed off in sailing some years ago, is to a large degree dead in general aviation, but evidently not quite yet. It will never die because GA is full of characters who just love the old ways of doing things.

Give them the open cockpits and goggles and stopwatches and let them fly the way they want to fly, and leave them alone in the forums. They never make a meaningful contribution.

The rest of us can move on.

VOD80 - you seem to have gone into rant mode. No one has said that GPS is a required item for flight. However, there are a lot of items that are not required but would still be good airmanship to have (for instance more fuel than minimums, spare pencils, a second time piece, etc.) Many people have argued that in today's world a GPS is a very cheap piece of highly functional equipment.

To your list
You are being grossly biased (or wilfully distorting what people are saying). GPS is a tool that is highly effective at aiding navigation (of all types), maintaining situational awareness and increasing the operational envelop.

You are right that it could be mis-employed to degrade safety margins. But the same can be said of all tools - even the most basic tool we all have in our SEP VFR machines (the engine - a cantankerous bit of kit that could fail, reduces the precision of our flying, and as our long distance glider cousins remind us - isn't actually necessary for flying!).

We can all dig out examples of pilots who have used GPS badly. However, it is unfortunate quite easy to dig out examples of pilots that have come to grief or been near misses with air carriers that were using traditional navigation.

Like all of us - as you pick up flying again, you can choose the tools and processes you want to use. Quite a lot of sage advice says, 'don't look down your nose at GPS - it is a great tool. But do spend some time learning to use it.

In addition, if you have been out of the frame for 10 years, you might want to look at some of the new fangled technology for getting NOTAMs, weather, filing flight plans (if you ever leave your country), and contacting airfields.

Note - mobile phones are not required equipment for VFR flight - but I think it is bad airmanship to purposefully head off on a flight without one - who knows, you might even want to book a table at the local pub as you are walking to it after a precautionary landing (due to temporary disorientation and unexpected weather):)

Hello!

As I was already saying (two, three or four times?): By freeing 100% of your brain and eye capacity to keeping a lookout for traffic.

Maybe you personally are blessed with above standard navigational capabilities and enough funds to permit you to keep flying frequently and stay in training. Then you really need no GPS (but beware of those prohibited zones around the French nuclear powerplants that were established since 2002: The fine for violating one is over 20.000 Euros - that alone would prevent me from flying VFR to France without a GPS...).

But according to my experience, the average (private - but not only!) pilot has only average navigational skills. This is not helped by the fact that the high cost of private flying prevents many pilots from flying more than the required minimum hours. These people devote a lot, often near 100%!, of their mental capacity to keeping the aeroplane straight and level and navigating at the same time. Nothing else. No proper radio calls (ever been flying on a sunny Saturday afternoon after some weekends of bad weather?) and no looking for traffic either. Even if they look outside momentarily, they see nothing because their brain is too busy. For these people a good GPS unit makes all the difference between a safe and rewarding afternoon spent flying or two hours of panic. They need to train using their GPS of course, but this can be done on the ground with no cost involved at all.

This is indeed a good example (Egelsbach). It is one of those airfields where I wouldn't dare to go without a GPS (and I have been there quite often...) _because_ they have so much traffic and so many airspace restrictions. No GPS - me no fly to Egelsbach...

Yes. And this is why everybody must look outside. All the time. As you know, most aircraft have somewhat limited visibility outside and there are many dead angles where you can't see anything. Some more than others (the worst I ever flew was the Metroliner that looks from inside like a Concorde with the visor up - you really only see what you are going to hit the next second). If I can't see him, then he must see me. Or we both die. But he can't see me, while he looks around his map.

Interesting, but this is not about using GPS, it is about abusing GPS.

GPS approaches are one of the most demanding tasks of IFR flying (second only to NDB approaches, but these have nearly disappeared in Europe). They even require special company training when done in the commercial environment. Before moving-map GPS units became commonplace, they were even more difficult and dangerous.

Greetings, Max

Mmmmmm.....

Whose opinion to take onboard, a pilot/advanced FI with over 25K hours including helicopters, SEP, MEP and turbine aircraft (including A320) or a returning pilot with 250 hours on light singles.

To add to the dilemma, the 25K pilot is recommending using a blend of old and new tools/techniques, whereas the returning PPL seems to view the new technology as being an invention of the anti christ, in its ability to seduce people from the true path.

Now, as a 250 hour pilot, who should I listen to? :E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E

Maybe I'll give Ned Ludd a call and get his view.

Excellent summing up, F3G, really nothing else that need be added. :D