Cross Country Must be done using Pilotage?

[SkyHog]

This is a question for CFIs. I have seen many CFIs online and offline say that the cross countries required for primary students must be done without GPS. I cannot see anything that requires that. The only reference to pilotage I can see is that the student must be familiar with pilotage as it applies to using a sectional chart.

Is this actually a requirement that I cannot find?

 

[bbchien]

Well, here's the thing Nick. If you go on your long XC solo with the GPS, are you really going to use the sectional DR waypoints? NO.

So the time to learn it is as a student, you never froget it. Then use your Garmin thereafter. My students carry their Garmins, Lowrances, wahtever-have-yous in a brown bag with an old wax seal. I tell them, if you have to open it, for heaven's sake open it, but we are doing the long XC again.

And guess what? Nary a single student has opened his bag. Can you say, "review the student's flight planning"....

And as to your byline, Nick, tee hee. I remember when I had 200. I had just been qualified on the flight deck of a 132,000 pound aircraft. And I didn't know any better.

Man we gotta get you out of ABQ. High speed lead is bad for your health.

 

[poadeleted20]

While it is true that DR/Pilotage is not specified in 14 CFR 61.107/109...

A. TASK: PILOTAGE AND DEAD RECKONING (ASEL and ASES)

REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.​

Objective.​

To determine that the applicant:​

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to pilotage and dead reckoning.
2. Follows the preplanned course by reference to landmarks.
3. Identifies landmarks by relating surface features to chart symbols.
4. Navigates by means of precomputed headings, groundspeeds, and elapsed time.
5. Corrects for and records the differences between preflight groundspeed and heading calculations and those determined en route.
6. Verifies the airplane's position within three (3) nautical miles of the flight-planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within five (5) minutes of the initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.​

8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and headings, ±15°.

I suppose it's possible a trainee could figure this out without ever being trained on it but I don't see how. That's not to say that you can't teach the trainee how to use a GPS, but DR/Pilotage is required and GPS is not (unless the plane has a GPS but not a VOR -- see Area VII, Task B ).​

 

[ScottM]

There is no requirment that I can find. I did all my XCs the old fashioned way with pilotage AND VOR AND ded reckoning. Different parts fo the XC we did different types of NAV. After my XCs we also played a little with the GPS. But I really got into the GPS during my IFR training. I did do my XC with the GPS for that rating. But then it was good training to have put in a flight plan and then have to constantly amend it as Chi-Dep would amend my clearence. I also would need to know how to shoot GPS approaches. My Commercial long XC was done without GPS at all, none in the plane I used, but no bigee I knew how to actaully navigate without it.

 

[AuntPeggy]

The point is, this is your opportunity to learn an important skill. Don't slight yourself.
- Aunt Peggy

 

[Greg Bockelman]

The point is, this is your opportunity to learn an important skill. Don't slight yourself.
- Aunt Peggy

Of course, Nick is already past that point.

 

[SkyHog]

While it is true that DR/Pilotage is not specified in 14 CFR 61.107/109...

I suppose it's possible a trainee could figure this out without ever being trained on it but I don't see how. That's not to say that you can't teach the trainee how to use a GPS, but DR/Pilotage is required and GPS is not (unless the plane has a GPS but not a VOR -- see Area VII, Task B ).​

Good info, Ron!

Question though, the CFI *could* teach pilotage without having it be done on the solo cross country, right? I was taught a spin without having to do it solo, same concept, right?

Seems the PTS only states that the pilot must be familiar with it. If I remember correctly, pilotage for me was just part of the oral. In flight, we flew to the first checkpoint on my flight plan (a VOR radial crossing with powerlines) and he said it was good enough.

And as to your byline, Nick, tee hee. I remember when I had 200. I had just been qualified on the flight deck of a 132,000 pound aircraft. And I didn't know any better.

Man we gotta get you out of ABQ. High speed lead is bad for your health.

I take it that's military? If not, holy crap you move fast!

 

[ScottM]

In teh ancient days of the 1980s I was learning to fly in England. We had to be able to use pilotage to navigate the local flying area and prove that to an instructor before we were allowed to do XCs or solo. The local fly area had some interesting landmarks in it too so it was fun. But it really taught you how to use the ole skills.

 

[poadeleted20]

Question though, the CFI *could* teach pilotage without having it be done on the solo cross country, right?

The Law of Exercise (see the Aviation Instructor's Handbook) suggests this would be ineffective. My direction to students is to take their GPS in a sealed plastic bag. If they get lost, they can open the bag, but then they have to refly the hop using DR/pilotage only. Likewise, if a GPS is installed, I tape it over in a way they can't retape.

I was taught a spin without having to do it solo, same concept, right?

Spins are a bit riskier than DR/pilotage nav.

Seems the PTS only states that the pilot must be familiar with it.

You need to read the PTS section quoted above one more time. You must demonstrate proficiency in DR/pilotage navigation in flight (see elements 2 through 7), not just "be familiar" with it (element 1).

If I remember correctly, pilotage for me was just part of the oral. In flight, we flew to the first checkpoint on my flight plan (a VOR radial crossing with powerlines) and he said it was good enough.

If so, your DPE failed to test you to PTS standards as required, and if the FSDO found out that you were only tested on navigating by VOR (that's Task B in Area VII) and not pilotage/DR (Task A), they would probably pull his designation and make you come back for a full retest to find out whether you can do all the required Areas/Tasks, not just the ones he chose to test.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What do you do in airplanes with a panel-mount GPS? You have to teach that as well, right?

Fly safe!

David

 

[SkyHog]

The Law of Exercise (see the Aviation Instructor's Handbook) suggests this would be ineffective. My direction to students is to take their GPS in a sealed plastic bag. If they get lost, they can open the bag, but then they have to refly the hop using DR/pilotage only. Likewise, if a GPS is installed, I tape it over in a way they can't retape.

Good idea (I haven't read the Aviation Instructor's Handbook. Might be a good read).

Spins are a bit riskier than DR/pilotage nav.

While I agree, the concept is still the same, teaching something without its application when it counts. It is my opinion that spins should still be taught as part of the private pilot requirements in lieu of certain ground reference maneuvers....but my opinion always gets people riled up anyways.

You need to read the PTS section quoted above one more time. You must demonstrate proficiency in DR/pilotage navigation in flight (see elements 2 through 7), not just "be familiar" with it (element 1).

You're right, I misread it. It does make sense that it is required to be demonstrated, it could save someone's bacon some day.

If so, your DPE failed to test you to PTS standards as required, and if the FSDO found out that you were only tested on navigating by VOR (that's Task B in Area VII) and not pilotage/DR (Task A), they would probably pull his designation and make you come back for a full retest to find out whether you can do all the required Areas/Tasks, not just the ones he chose to test.

Nah, I'm pretty sure he made me do it all, some of which I may not have noticed, since the DE didn't actually specify which task we were performing as we did it. For example, the diversion wasn't said like "Ok, lets divert to Belen" he just said, "that looks good, now, lets say we were to go to Belen. Take me there."

 

[poadeleted20]

What do you do in airplanes with a panel-mount GPS? You have to teach that as well, right?

For an IR, yes, but even if a GPS is installed, the Private PTS does not require the applicant to use it or even know it if you can do VOR (read the PTS carefully). Of course, if it were installed, I would teach it, but not to the exclusion of DR/pilotage, and I'd still require the solo XC's to be flown using DR/pilotage (with the GPS taped over), as that, and not GPS, is what is required on the Private practical test, and perhaps more importantly, what will keep you alive (or, at least, found) if the satellites go Tango Uniform.

 

[poadeleted20]

While I agree, the concept is still the same, teaching something without its application when it counts. It is my opinion that spins should still be taught as part of the private pilot requirements in lieu of certain ground reference maneuvers....but my opinion always gets people riled up anyways.

Spin recovery training is, other than for CFI requirements, an optional item. For reasons written in blood, we teach people to stay out of them, not get out of them (which, by necessity, involves getting into them, the thing we want them to learn to avoid). Thus, spin recoveries are not something we expect or want our primary trainees to need to do, no less use regularly. OTOH, we do expect them to be tested on DR/pilotage nav on their practical test, as well as to use it routinely throughout their piloting days, so they need to practice it a lot as students.

Nah, I'm pretty sure he made me do it all, some of which I may not have noticed, since the DE didn't actually specify which task we were performing as we did it. For example, the diversion wasn't said like "Ok, lets divert to Belen" he just said, "that looks good, now, lets say we were to go to Belen. Take me there."

That sounds better.

 

[mikea]

I made a point to not buy my Garmin 295 until after I finished my PPL.

Now, I wonder how I went as far as did without it.

"...I used to know how to do that..."

 

[Skip Miller]

You're right, I misread it. It does make sense that it is required to be demonstrated, it could save someone's bacon some day.

It didn't save my bacon, but it did earn me my ASEL certificate. I had to fly to another airport to meet my DPE. I'll never know if the DPE spun my DG when I wasn't looking or if it precessed a lot on shutdown, but the fact is that I didn't align the DG with the compass or the runway when departing. I nailed the course with pilotage. The DPE kept asking me questions about the winds aloft, what the next checkpoint was, how was I going to find it, how much wind correction there should be, etc. Finally it dawned on me that the mag compass and the DG were about 30 degrees off. I was sure I had pink-slipped the ride.

I wasn't on the boards then and therefore hadn't had the opportunity to read Ron's checkride advice. I was sure I had blown the ride so I relaxed and flew the rest of the ride well. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard the DPE's magic words.

In the debrief, the DPE told me that forgetting to set the DG is a minor error so long as you nail the intended course.

Pilotage is a wonderful thing!!!

-Skip

 

[MauleSkinner]

For an IR, yes, but even if a GPS is installed, the Private PTS does not require the applicant to use it or even know it if you can do VOR (read the PTS carefully). Of course, if it were installed, I would teach it, but not to the exclusion of DR/pilotage, and I'd still require the solo XC's to be flown using DR/pilotage (with the GPS taped over), as that, and not GPS, is what is required on the Private practical test, and perhaps more importantly, what will keep you alive (or, at least, found) if the satellites go Tango Uniform.

I understand that GPS isn't required specifically for navigation, but isn't there something in there about the applicant being responsible for all of the equipment in the airplane? Also, do you tape over VOR receivers as well?

I'm not advocating a reduction in DR/pilotage training or ability. Seems to me, however, that there's also something to be said for teaching the student the the right way to navigate using the tools and techniques they will use AFTER the checkride. If we give the impression that GPS use and DR/pilotage are mutually exclusive, guess what they're NOT going to do when they start navigating with GPS.

Like any other skills and techniques, they DO need to be taught separately at first, so that each is fully understood, but I think by the time they're doing a long cross-country, they should be at the stage where they can integrate the techniques.

Fly safe!

David

 

[poadeleted20]

I understand that GPS isn't required specifically for navigation, but isn't there something in there about the applicant being responsible for all of the equipment in the airplane?

I think you may be confusing the IR and PP PTS's.

Also, do you tape over VOR receivers as well?

No, because in most cases, they aren't all that useful in staying on a course not plotted VOR to VOR.

I'm not advocating a reduction in DR/pilotage training or ability. Seems to me, however, that there's also something to be said for teaching the student the the right way to navigate using the tools and techniques they will use AFTER the checkride. If we give the impression that GPS use and DR/pilotage are mutually exclusive, guess what they're NOT going to do when they start navigating with GPS.

Your point is well taken, but I think it's a buildiing block approach, and the GPS block can be left until either DR/Pilotage is mastered or the PPL ride is completed. In any event, it seems like when they get hold of a handheld GPS, they always figure out how to use it even before I teach them; the same is not true of DR/Pilotage.

 

[Pjsmith]

By luck of what was available at the flight school on the particular day of my long XC, I ended up with a plane that had no GPS. And you know what? In retrospect I am glad it worked that way.

To me, the point of the long XC flight is not for the student to prove to the CFI that they can do it. The CFI already believes this, or s/he wouldn't have released you to do it. To me, the point of the long XC was to prove to me that I could do it with the skills I had already obtained. Had I just followed a line on the moving map (something, sadly, I have come to take for granted on Post PPL XCs), I would not have come back from that flight with the level of confidence I had in my core skills.

 

[poadeleted20]

To me, the point of the long XC flight is not for the student to prove to the CFI that they can do it. The CFI already believes this, or s/he wouldn't have released you to do it. To me, the point of the long XC was to prove to me that I could do it with the skills I had already obtained.

Ah, grasshopper, the sun of enlightenment shines brightly upon you.

 

[JustinPinnix]

In teh ancient days of the 1980s I was learning to fly in England. We had to be able to use pilotage to navigate the local flying area and prove that to an instructor before we were allowed to do XCs or solo. The local fly area had some interesting landmarks in it too so it was fun. But it really taught you how to use the ole skills.

I read in a magazine that celestial navigation is still a requirement in Merry Olde England. Is that true?

 

[ScottM]

I read in a magazine that celestial navigation is still a requirement in Merry Olde England. Is that true?

It has been 23 years since I flew there. At the time I was taking lessons I was not in the UK's pilot program, I was flying N-numbered aircraft with a FAA CFI and getting a US license. So I really do not know.

There were some differences to deal with because I also had to learn the UK system. Little things like squawking 1234 instead of 1200 for VFR and some comm requirements differences. I also was flying off of a USAF base so there were still some other issues. Like don't taxi over to where the nuclear weapons are at or die.

 

[gismo]

For a counterpoint, the day will probably come when pilotage is neither required by the PTS nor a useful skill for pilots. Last time I checked, navigation by sextant or four course radio range is neither taugt nor tested for any civil certificate, but I suspect that at one point it they were important skills, for certain types of flying.

I do expect that the day when pilotage is considered obsolete and oudated is many years off. Before that day GPS or some other area nav would have to be required in all airplanes flown more than a short distance from their home base, and it would have to be so reliable that a failure was less likely than a wing falling off.

But when the expanding boundaries of special use airspace become so complex that it's nearly impossible to avoid an intrusion, when TFRs begin to pop up and or move around with little or no warning (wait, don't we already have that?), moving maps with uplinked displays of the current airspace situation may well become essential.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I read in a magazine that celestial navigation is still a requirement in Merry Olde England. Is that true?

Celestial is EASY...just punch up "direct to" on the GPS, and you're using celestial nav!

 

[ejensen]

Lance you may be right but I hope I never see the day you don't need a map to fly. At least for recreational GA flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

Celestial is EASY...just punch up "direct to" on the GPS, and you're using celestial nav!

Celestial is easy in an FB-111 -- just turn on the star-tracker, enter your data, and turn it loose. However, I would not call using a GPS "celestial" navigation -- that term is reserved for the ancient art of navigation by the angle of the stars and planetary bodies to the horizon and the antipodes, not electronic navigation by radio signals measuring distance from orbiting satellites. True celestial navigation by sextant and book is both art and science, and by no means "easy" to master.

Ron Levy
Senior Navigator (retired)

PS: No, I haven't done a cel shot in over 25 years, but there was a time...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

True celestial navigation by sextant and book is both art and science, and by no means "easy" to master.

I've always wondered how these navigators on ocean-going vessels could possibly use a sextant (don't you sight up on a specific star through the thing?) with the boat moving up and down and back and forth...

 

[ScottM]

I've always wondered how these navigators on ocean-going vessels could possibly use a sextant (don't you sight up on a specific star through the thing?) with the boat moving up and down and back and forth...

That does affect the ability to take a sighting to get a LOP but even worse is that you cannot see the horizon properly in high seas and that affects the ability to get a sighting. During rough weather boats would 'hope' they knew where they were.

 

[Skip Miller]

During rough weather boats would 'hope' they knew where they were.

We used to figure that a celnav plot manually done (sextant, publications, and a lot of adding and subtracting) was very accurate if the answer was within 5 miles. (We had electronics to provide the check. It was supposed to be the other way around but when you had 3 junior officers with widely varying fixes, the one closest to the electronic position won.)

We used the Naval equivalent to the big sky theory. When you travel at plus/minus 20 knots, it is indeed a big ocean.

-Skip

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Scott-

I know only enough to be dangerous with a sextant, but wouldn't you sight on the horizon when you are at the top of a high sea? High seas are relative, and an awful lot of "ships" were only 50-75 feet long in the old days. They also had only a few feet of freeboard. As for the motion, you do get used to it and learn to compensate. The motion is really quite regular, especially under sail. My actual experiance is based on sailing small boats around Long Island as a kid.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Another reason for using pilotage- It's just plain fun! Using the electronics, I just feel like a driver.