Agree. The 'official' databases often down't show local VRPs, although these are charted. Also, it depends where you are flying. I've flown quite a bit in parts of the world where the official databases are somewhat lacking, to put it charitably. As an example in parts of southern Africa I had to input ALL waypoints and most airstrips manually, the database only has the main airports.

Of course, you don't do this by sitting in the cockpit trying not to make too many mistakes with the rocker switch! Input them at leisure into Garmin MapSource and upload to the unit. MapSource, btw, allows you to cross-check the input against an - admittedly crappy - map. At least this throws up gross errors like the one cumulusrider refers to.

Yes; I did say "Europe".

I bet there is a lot of DIY waypoint stuff going on in Africa. No real aviation charts for most of it, too.

Mad Jock,

The specific one I was thinking of was American Airlines into Cali. Here are a couple of quick summaries.

NSTB summary

Wiki

A more detailed analysis

In reviewing them, I must admit I may need to take back my comment. While the first two links suggest a system similar to yours, that is a text list of waypoints bearings and distances, the third link implies they did have a moving map and didnt notice the wrong R entry showing a line zooming off to Bogota to the North East.

I can easily see how entering the wrong R NDB into a text based FMS can get you, I do struggle with not noticing that the magenta line takes yoz 150 miles behind and to the left of where you are going.

DV 3 Compass failures
 

I did say 'MY P8 Compass' not those 'standby types' as fitted to most GA aircraft.
Actually never had a magnetic compass fail in anything in over 40 years,even though some were hard to read they were so old.
As a very experienced BA Concorde pilot once stated to me:-
You are either VMC, and can see where you are and where you are going, or your IMC and should be operating as such (with the required equipment)
Its the bit in-between that causes the problems.
I happen to think that a simple GPS is quite a useful aid to flying in the UK,but only if those using them understand the limitations, and are 'trained' to plan accordingly.

Peter337, your depth of knowledge or experience is often somewhat lacking. Yes, I do fly a helicopter; why do you always try to dismiss this form of aviation? Is it because you have no knowledge and it doesn't fit in with your blinkered proclamations?

My job has absolutely nothing to do with surveying or powerline inspections (what bizarre ideas). Where did I say I was flying commercially? I correctly and legally write "P" for PRIVATE in the tech log for every sector.

I also use the same "standard" nav kit as fitted to fixed wing aircraft, possibly the same kit as you do, to go from A to B. I am simply required to use it in more depth than you obviously do. As far as errors are concerned, I have a system in place to minimise the chance of an input error being made and to correct it immediately if required. Beforedeparture, that is.

Btw, did anyone tell you that you have the same style as IO540?

It was a 757-223

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5288/5...30f82859_z.jpg

It only had a GPWS system not a EGPWS which is manditory in Europe now which is quite a different beastie.

It did have a moving map but not quite whats being discussed here as I would doudt there would be any topographical information on it.

You and me both. Its quite a common problem though with DCT waypoints getting put in off route and then getting executed without a "am I being a dick" check to make sure its not in Japan or some other stupid place (presumeing of course your not flying in Japan)

Its this whole going below MSA milarky and having a situational awarness to even know that your below it while adding in you factors for wind speed and temprature etc which are commonly forgotten about.

I often use "user waypoints" fixed wing.

To avoid airspace, or just to simplify a visual approach to somewhere, I often fly a radial towards one VOR/DME, and then at a certain distance from it I turn onto the next leg. Situational awareness can only be helped if that turning point is also on the GPS moving map, but it won't be in the database.

So long as you cross-check the user waypoints (plotting them and checking visually is best, pre-flight) I don't see this as any more dangerous than entering the wrong "Bangor", or even mistaking one town for another on a chart!

To err is human, that's why we cross-check.

He's right of course but Concorde ops are a world away from light FW GA. They took off, in CAS, under vectors (or own nav) all the way to the far end where they got more vectors to the ILS, and auto land (or hand land if VMC using the flight director).

I can do that too (except the auto land :) ) with the same predetermined flight characteristics which make navigation a no-brainer. Most IFR flights around Europe are like that, if you file a fairly standard route in CAS and are going between instrument airports.

ShyTorque

I am commenting from the perspective of this forum, which is a) FW and b) GA.

Other ops will have different regimes. I am sure the space shuttle works differently, too. Let's wait for one of their pilots to pitch in :)

BTW I never failed any checkride in my life, FAA or JAA, so get this right before attacking me personally. In fact my FAA CPL checkride was quite a pleasant experience. What you are no doubt referring to is that I once "failed" a 170A which is a bogus UK-only concept which has not been valid since 1999 but very few people know that, and the FTOs love it because they can get another grand out of everybody even after they are ready for the IRT. You can book the IRT directly with the CAA regardless of the outcome of any "170A flight test". The FTO is obliged to give you the 170A course completion certificate when you have completed the approved course and you can book the IRT with that. The 170A "examiner" I had did various antics like trying to break the nosegear; he thought it was the same as a Cessna, apparently... (spring-connected), and failing me for doing the power checks with the wind behind, for filing an alternate which he didn't like, etc. But it wasn't a checkride; it was a standard revenue raising exercise for the FTO.

I have had 3 standby type compasses go tits up.

1 fell off mid flight and I was more concerned about it jamming the rudder pedals.

1 decided to piss fluid everywhere (reckon the FO belted it with his knee board)

And the last one started omitting smoke during the cruise when we turned the panel lights on. I presume because folk had been using it to jam charts behind for a glare shield screwing with the power supply wires.

And I use user waypoints for center fixes and cross check the lat/long with the plate to make sure its reasonable.

There really not you know Peter although concorde is proberly the furthest away from GA aircraft in the civilain world 99% of the stuff that the pro's do is exactly the same as if you were flying privately. Hence why there is no distinction between a pro IR and a private one.

What a nasty thing to say.

I think it's fair to say that when people get nasty there is either something wrong with their position or something wrong with their ability to express it.

In any case if I remember correctly Peter passed his cpl first time; and it was some unnecessary per exam assessment that he didn't pass.

If you have any decency, having had an opportunity to consider your comment, you would apologise for it. It's uncalled for and quite nasty and certainly won't encourage new users here to be open to sharing their experiences.

I do also hold a CPLA and would use the GNS GPS in a very similar way, if fitted to any fixed wing I might fly.

Why do you claim that rotary wing isn't GA?

Dublin Pilot, I certainly will apologise. Providing that Peter337 assures me he isn't the same person as IO540.

Only because there is a forum here called Rotorheads, so it would be natural to assume that heli pilots go there and FW pilots come here.

The AAIB remark was squarely in the FW GA context.

Actually my GF just reminded me of something. Shouldn't somebody ask the AAIB for data supporting that assertion? Such a respected body must have supporting data for everything, surely.

Would it matter if they had Peter?

You will just say that they are wrong just like you do with anyone else that posts an opinion thats contrary to yours.

Personally I do hope they expand on the subject and also give examples of where things have gone wrong. Might give instructors a chance to pre-warn students of common pit falls and experenced pilots a moment of thought about there own personal procedures.

So as a rotary pilot, you would wish to moderate me off this forum altogether? But as a fairly experienced fixed wing pilot, by the same rule, it's surely also inappropriate for me to go to Rotorheads.

Btw, I'm waiting to apologise, if you would be so kind. I've already removed the comment seen as "nasty".

Peter

I for one realise that GPS is probably one of the biggest if not the biggest advancement in navigation this century so what Are my concerns.
It worries me somewhat when pilots become too dependent on technology to cover gaps in their own flying skills.

We had a longish thread on the Cirrus shute system and relying on the chute technology to cover pilots inabilities to make a successful forced landing in the event of engine failure.

The same aircraft has a panic button to recover the aircraft automatically if the pilot looses control.
We now have GPS and all manner of terrain depiction.
All these things are good as a compliment to strong piloting skills and procedures but not so if a pilot is relying on automated systems to counter a lack of skills.

What worried me with the chute is that pilots could be drawn into out of their depth situations through confidence of having the chute.
The same goes with advanced GPS systems.

I do know of pilots in such machines who no longer take or look at charts or even flight plan. Its just punch in and blindly go.
Do these excellent safety advancements add to piloting skills NO NO NO! They encourage pilots to loose those skills by over reliance on the systems as well as becoming shoddy in their airmanship.

As with the chute treated with respect and as an extra tool to the other tools available to them then these new advancements become truly safety advancements.

I have seen pilots here advocate flying on top by saying to just punch in the autopilot to climb through cloud. Great if you have the skills to handle anything thrown at you in cloud! not so great if you do not and the autopilot fails. Take my word for it i have had numerous autopilot failures of one kind or another.

Abused to the extent of getting lazy with basic flying skills or used to cover up deficiences in those skills and the pilot is enroute to waypoint called trouble.

Pace

That pretty much is my view as well Pace.

Also as well that practise is the only way you bed the skills in for periods when you don't use them.

Which is why I think its all very good teaching students to use a GPS but until they have the other skill sets to the level of "changing gear in a car" they have nothing to fall back on.

I don't disagree with you Pace in absolute terms but might differ as to the extent to which you perhaps portray TAA (tech advanced aircraft) pilots as morons :)

I do know some who do stupid things but the vast majority are clued-up people who took the time to get clued-up on their systems (to the extent possible in the rather crappy UK private flying training environment) and they fly safely. Most are successful business/prof people who are not stupid to start with.

The accident reports do not support any special high rate of prangs of people in nice shiny planes. In the USA there has always been a fairly obvious level of such, but then the GA scene out there is a lot more affluent and their GA infrastructure supports a level of utility flying which we don't have in Europe.

Most accident reports that show clear pilot error followed by a death show a pilot flying something fairly basic, who made a series of stupid decisions, possibly never got the wx, and ended up doing an "impossible" flight. Or the usual loss of control in IMC, or stall/spin stuff.

Straight CFITs are very very rare, as are accidents in "classical IFR" i.e. takeoff, sid, enroute, star, approach. The last CFIT I recall reading about was a PPL night instructional flight where deliberately no GPS was used, they did some dodgy (hurried) navaid fixes, some dead reckoning, and flew into slowly rising ground, at a small angle so amazingly both survived.

So as I say I don't see a pattern of muppets sticking the key into their G1000 equipped plane, taking off without a plan and crashing etc. Or if they do, they don't seem to have any trouble.

The biggest problem is a lack of training on nontrivial aircraft systems in the PPL but due to massive industry resistance this will never be addressed until a) the present GA fleet is largely scrapped and b) the CAA gets FEs to require a demo of competence on everything installed (like the FAA does). 20 years?

Ultimately this discussion leads to a call for a "TAA type rating" and I would say be careful what you wish for because you might get it. It isn't an ICAO requirement, probably because ICAO is still in the 1970s and GA systems have become very powerful in the last 10-20 years. The 1990s gear I fly behind is better than what a 747 had 30 years ago (INS, auto throttle and autoland excepted). Concorde looks positively jurrasic. Current gear (G1000 etc) is way better, with LPV (when that comes, ahem) etc. In the USA, the insurers have de facto forced this (mandatory type training) but the UK lags behind. In the CAT business this is dealt with in the TR so somebody with the TR maybe can't hand fly too well but he should know what the knobs in the 737 do.

So I just can't get excited about TAA pilots doing crazy things.

My thoughts about the correct use of GPS is that a plan should be made first, i.e. by drawing lines on the relevant chart/s. GPS should be subsequently used to make the route easier to fly. The GPS route should be checked against that plan. If there is any discrepancy, the flight must not go until it's resolved.

After all, it's by no means unknown for a "traditional" paper PLOG/flight plan to have errors on it, too, such as an incorrect track or distance written down, or a total time added up incorrectly.

One plan is used to cross check the other. I'm fortunate enough to have a moving map display, albeit a very basic one, which can usually be zoomed out to show the whole flight.. If the moving map track lines don't match the chart lines, that's an instant "stop" signal.

Once the route is in the GPS and checked, I often save it if required, for a later date. The "box" is subsequently highly unlikely to make an error in that plan.

Yes, obviously.

They might not be crashing but they may be busting airspace.

Not every aircraft has a servicable AP Peter, will admit the swept wing operators are more adverse to going without it compared to the turboprop pilots. Everyday in europe there must 100's of aircraft flying with U/S AP's.

You really don't have a clue what happens in commercial aircraft what we can operate with and without and how much hand flying goes on.

Some cabin crew would say the knobs fly it ;)

Peter

In the Cirrus thread where the aircraft carry all the advanced GPS, Chutes and automated systems where i questioned why the chute should be used as a standard engine failure recovery system as standard the argument was placed that Cirrus pilots only flew 12 hrs a year and did not have the experience to pull off an off field landing hence it was safer to pull the chute?

I am perplexed ;)

I am all for advanced systems and navigation where they are tools to add to the array of tools avialable to a current and well trained and experienced pilot! I am not for such systems and nav where they are used to plug pilot deficiencies, lack of currency or inexperience.

I do not agree with MJ on many things but I do agree that in commercial flying we have a lot of failures and workarounds including autopilots.
Using any of these advanced systems to plug holes in pilot capability is a very dangerous approach to take

Pace

There was no sarcasm intended my Latin friend, and you have evidently completely misunderstood my post. I also agree with him entirely.:hmm:

Clued Up 2012 Issue

Erratum: On page 65 "largely as a result of overuse of GPS" should read "largely as a result of over reliance on GPS"

The actual wording can be viewed on line at

FLYER Magazine - the fastest growing general aviation magazine in the UK

Page 65

and the statistical evidence for the above claim is... exactly where?

Prejudices die hard.

I have read various UK stats in the past and could never see this.

Yes there are some TAAs doing busts but not any significant figure.

Human factors can always make it possible. I busted a piece of the LTMA near Farnborough, for some 20-30 seconds, as a result of talking to a passenger and forgetting to descend under the next stepdown (4400ft to 3400ft or whatever). One solution to that is to fly the whole lot at 2400ft but then you increase the risk of a mid-air, which at > 3000ft is very much lower.

There are other ways for "serious" pilots for busting CAS. For example the old chestnut of flying from France to the UK, where you were nicely cruising along at FL100 (on a Eurocontrol IFR flight plan) and the French handed you over to "London 124.6". Those born and bred in Brigh'on will know that 124.6 means their IFR clearance has just been unilaterally and quietly destroyed and now (in breach of ICAO) they are VFR traffic but a foreigner will just carry on. London Info have radar (though they are not allowed to say so) so if you call them up in good time they will tell you to descend below FL075 (etc) but if you delay, or the handover occurs later, you will bust the Worthing CTA. Not that there is any CAT in there at FL100 that far out over water, but a bust is a bust.

This went on for years... because the only French unit with a "handover deal" with London Control was Paris Control, and PC didn't do traffic below FL120, so to continue your IFR clearance you had to be on oxygen :ugh:

Much more recently, this issue has been somewhat fixed. I have had a handover from Brest to LC (from Cherbourg) at FL090, and been handled by PC at FL100 and handed over to LC at FL100. So evidently some heads were banged together, but this is relevant if reading old CAS bust stats as a large % of these will be well equipped planes.

I don't think they have evidence for either.

Remember the AAIB gets involved only in crashes, and ask yourself how the over-use of a GPS can cause a crash.

You would have to be fiddling with knobs all the way through a spiral dive into the ground. I'd love to know how they established the cause there :E

Or mis-program a GPS and do a CFIT, but these are very rare in the UK. The hallmark of a CFIT due to a basic nav c0ckup is a long straight line into a hill, but that isn't a GPS issue; it is caused by a shortage of obstacle clearance :) You can do a CFIT while VOR tracking just as well, and hundreds if not thousands have done over the decades, around the world.

So I think the statement is just simple bollocks.

In the IT world, whenever we make available, or transfer a large file, some form of checksumming is used. Heck, even the smallest Ethernet frames use them. Because we know, from experience, that various electromagnetic influences, from somebody turning on the vacuum cleaner to cosmic rays, can flip a bit.

So we add up all the bits in the file or transmission, either using a simple addition, or using advanced cryptographic algorithms, and transmit the result of that calculation as well. The receiver does the same thing and can thus be reasonably sure that the information was transmitted correctly.

Other stuff like International Standard Book Numbers, Bar codes, SSNs and such, all have some form of an internal checksum built-in as well.

I find it amazing that flight plans, when transferred from one device to another, or even lat/long positions, don't have something like that. Obviously when hand-calculating lat/long positions or a plog, this will be a very hard to solve problem. But I've seen loads of pilots that create a plog on their PC using some navigation program, then hand-input it in the GNS430 mounted in the plane. If the PC navigation program would calculate a checksum over the individual waypoints and the complete route, and the GNS430 would do the same thing, the pilot couild then simply compare these numbers and be pretty sure that the plan is in the system without errors.

Likewise, airline pilots still get their plog as a paper printout from dispatch, and need to input it in the FMS manually. At least, that was the case last time I sat in the jumpseat of a 737. No checksumming used whatsoever, as far as I can see, so the P2 needs to check manually that the P1 inputted each digit exactly as intended. Not that much of a problem when flying airways within Europe (lots of checks inherent in the naming of airways, navaids and intersections) but it might be a big problem when flying North Atlantic Tracks.

At the moment I'm not even aware of a standard for doing checksumming in the aviation world. Let alone of an actual usage.

Isn't a serviceable AP a requirement to enter RVSM airspace?

I've not read this latest Clued Up yet, but is it perhaps more accurate to say "somebody who works for AAIB expressed", rather than "AAIB expressed". There are a lot of good people who work there, and some of them don't mind expressing opinions about broader safety issues from time to time.

By and large, those opinions are worth listening to, but they aren't necessarily the official view of the branch.

G

What that it may be?

Well hopefully the AAIB will expand on there statement.

But even if they do I presume you will know better than the AAIB. Just as you know better than the CAA and military when it comes to all things GPS.

And you know better than all instructors in how to teach.

And you know better how to fly than all commercial pilots.

Yes you are correct Backpacker, it is but you need to be quite high to be in that you can quite happily cruise around under I think it is FL295 (My service ceiling is below it anyway at FL250) then you don't need to be RVSM.

You are just buttering me up so you can get a free flight in my TB20, MJ.

I don't fall for transparent trickery like that.

Nah your ok 25 sectors a week is quite enough flying for me and bombing around europe slower than I go already isn't my idea of a day off.

And thankfully my days of single engine IFR and night are over.

There is no quote from the AAIB. The article by Richard Taylor, of the CAA's Corporate Communications Department (?), reads:

That would be me then. ;)

Seriously, I guess I find it a little easier to get the chart out when I first sit in the cockpit and decide on a route. Its then a matter of plugging the route into the FMS check it agrees with the chart and off we go. I reckon I can plug a route in to any where in the UK in 5 minutes without the need for any more planning. (That is assuming I expect it to be VFR, a little more work otherwise I concede).

Of course for outside the UK a pesky FP must be filed so inevitably there is a little more planning otherwise it wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Yes I worry about high ground and NOTAMS - I can honestly say I always do a NOTAM brief before and I will take a quick look at the route and have a mental plan of what I will do if the weather doesn't behave.

I will often set off in a direction, decide to go somewhere else or drop into X so its all done on the fly, planning by the seat of the pants I guess.

Do I get the chart out on route? - well frankly not very often. I think the one thing glass avionics lack is painting the airspace limits all that well, so outside CAS I do find I usually aim to be as high as I can and am often looking for the next step up. For me I often find it quick to glance at the chart to work out the next step up or required step downs but that's about it.

It is always an education flying with commercial pilots who spend most/all their time in CAS. My good mate is a BA training captain so I guess he knows his business. He struggles on cross countries outside CAS nipping round, through and under CAS so I wouldn't be too concerned about how our commercial brethren go about it - as he says we are streaks ahead with some of the kit we are lucky enough to have, but then again they as soon as you are on an IFR flight plan its handed to you on a plate.

So in short why oh why do we have to make it so complicated? It really isn't.

When I started flying the planning use to take several hours - everyone soon got fed up with that, including me, but it was necessary at the time. In the end it makes getting from A to B and epic and most of us have better things to do.

I would go about things differently without a moving map and if my backup moving map both quit on me I would go about things differently but I am pretty comfortable with the mark one eyeball and the other radio navionics.

Large scale color moving maps with topography, weather, airspace and traffic all painted on the map give you unsurpassed situational aware - why wouldn't you want it. Of course the more kit you have the more head down time you can be lulled into, but actually AS LONG as you are comfortable with the technology it translates into less head in time that PLOGing your way across the country side.

VFR actually hasn't been "complicated" since I started flying solo in 2001.

All you needed back then was the VFR map, Navbox, a few clicks and you have the plog, 2 more clicks to reverse the route, few more clicks and you have the reversed plog, a few more clicks and you have a brief but nice enough A4 map of the whole route.

Notams didn't "exist" back then. Only in 2003 everybody started going berserk because suddenly they were on the internet so everybody started to pack the system with their "kite flying" garbage.

Weather was on the internet back then.

I remember doing PPL lessons and seeing somebody in the corner with a laptop.. I wondered what he was doing. It was something one didn't talk about...

What has changed now? Only that the printed chart is left on the back seat; the route can be planned using an electronic copy of it running on a PC - or some other presentation if you are happy with that (e.g. Skydemon).

What has not changed is flight training, which remains like it was in the 1960s, with a bit of VOR, no DME IIRC.

It is perfectly possible to not do any planning before getting into the cockpit - so long as you have an assured mobile internet connection, and have a backup for flying with electronic-only (non-printed) data. Plus you take a chance that your bimble will be clobbered by a TRA down the road. That's why I usually plan at home (or at work) so I know what I will be doing before I get in the car. But in safety terms it is not necessary.

Where I draw the line is having backups for electronic data, in case of a failure in the aircraft, or a failure of whatever other display device one is using.

Some people now use the Ipad but I bet most don't have a backup for its failure. Also, getting stuff into an Ipad is quite tacky - Itunes, or some other method (Iexplorer) whose functionality is limited to specific apps. Some copy the stuff into an Iphone so that is the backup then.

That's why I print out stuff. No backups needed then :)

Sounds like the CAA's Corporate Communications Department needs to re-educate Phil Space :)

I'm concerned that there seems to be an implicit assumption in this whole discussion that somehow the technology is a static thing: either you have GPS, or you don't.

IMHO nothing could be further from the truth. There have been some improvements in some paper maps over the last 3 years but the GPS of today (Skydemon/Foreflight/iPad) bears no resemblance to the GPS of 2009 (430 et al.) If anything, that trend is accelerating.

Right now, we are at a pivotal moment for VFR cross country flying because the utility of today's GPS is just exceeding that of the paper maps. The ability to zoom into detail and to see automated airspace warnings on electonic charts (that are always up to date) just exceeds the ability of paper maps to display essential information. Only just, though: some paper maps still have critical information (like bird sanctuaries) that is lacking from GPS displays.

In a short time all that will have changed, and the idea of trying to conduct a safety of life critical operation like flying a plane using a pre-printed, uncorrectable, one way resource like a paper map will seem ludicrously negligent. That transition is actually occurring right now, which is why some of us get quite worked up about it.

I've flown almost 50 Hrs in 3 continents in the last 8 weeks and have had an iPad balanced on my knee the whole time. Have I thrown away my paper maps? Not yet, because they still carry essential safety of flight information that has yet to appear on iPad. And I only carry one iPad because I have not yet reached the stage of velcroing over all those old steam gauges (like the 430!) with several more. But that day will come, and soon.

What's on offer is a way to enormously improve the utility of GA as a means of transport for a whole range of pilots who actually want to go somewhere, and to do it with almost no negative safety implications. It might be the biggest innovation in private flying since the Wright Brothers. All of us, everyone contributing here, should be behind this revolution and looking for ways to make it better, not half of us sniping at the other half.

It is a legal requirement to have a paper chart for a flight in the UK - ANO 2009, SCHEDULE 4 Articles 12(6) and 14(2).

Frankly GPS nav is great and the way forward, however it should never be taken for granted that it will work. Reading a paper chart is very reliable, difficult to disrupt and not prone to external jamming or equipment failiure

It will be interesting to see if the CAA take kindly to anyone who says something along the lines of:

• My GPS stopped working whilst enroute, that's why I infringed the Olympic Zone
• I don't carry a chart anymore, my IPAD has replaced that
• I always do my planning on the GPS and it should not have gone off - it's not my fault

[my bold]

No it isn't :ugh:

Hurrah! Peter337 has at last posted something I entirely agree with.

It is not a legal requirement to carry a paper chart. You are responsible as commander for selecting the "charts or codes" appropriate for the flight.

H

To quote the ANO

"Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment necessary, in addition to any other equipment required under this Order, for the intended flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected".

What an entertaining thread this has turned out to be!
 

I've been away from my nightly visit to PPRuNe for nine days, organising a gliding competition. We will not mention how many days of cross country gliding weather we enjoyed last week....

So have read the entire thread at one sitting. Peterh337 is a true gem, his discourse witty and knowlegable.

Basically the whole discussion turns on a remark attributed to a government funded body to the effect that undue reliance on GPS can lead to "poor situational awareness"

Well, there is situational awareness, and situational awareness. I invested a LOT of money a long time ago in a Garmin 55, and it was absolutely liberating.
No more wrestling with refolding charts in a cramped glider cockpit.
Crossing the Irish Sea in my Supercub, I simply velcroed the little darling on top of the instrument panel. Even used it sailing my boat in Tampa Bay.
( typed in EAST instead of WEST only the once, but if you have the basic notion in your brain that the sun should be setting in THAT direction, the suspicion soon arises that your trusty GPS is a bit confused....)

Situational awareness, or location, is one thing. Situational awareness or looking out the window carefully in VFR conditions, is something else entirely. The lucid discussion by David Dowd, US District Court Judge, says
it all, in the case mentioned by a previous poster, where a flying school tried to blame a midair on the temptation to fly staring at your handy moving map display. Said the judge, throwing out the case against the Garmin folks, "The evidence remains undisputed that all pilots flying under VFR conditions KNOW they have an unflinching duty to maintain vigilance in scanning for traffic by looking through the windscreen"

Getting fixated on instruments, gadgets, or a paper map does not absolve the VFR pilot of that unflinching duty.

This seems a nice wording of some concerns about over-use of and over-reliance on GPS.

PS West, it was, I seem to remember?