VFR Navigation

[rottydaddy]

Why do we even have to make assumptions............that a pilot with "wiz" skills for new technology, will most likely lack at basic skills? I do admit, that I don't classify VOR navigation as a basic skill. That's just old and outdated technology as far as I'm concerned. But it sure beat the methods prior to that! Why can't a student learn the new types of electronic navigation and flying skills at the same time? We all know that younger people adapt to electronic "whiz bang gizmos", much faster than us older ones do.

Not assuming anything... lots of pilots who routinely use the latest gadgets are well up to the task of doing without them. And let's face it, if you can't handle the new electronics, you're probably not going to be very good with the fundamentals of nav anyway. For example, even as VORs fade into history, a lot of pilots who started out using them still don't really get how to use them effectively. You can simply follow a radial, but there's a lot more to it than that, even for VFR nav. So I agree, some kid who started out with the latest toys available is not at a loss... unless they are taught to rely on that stuff at the expense of an understanding of the fundamentals. It was true for the old navaids, and it's true for GPS. That's all I'm saying.

So..............who do you trust your hide too? Three CFI's have hit upsloping terrain around here. Commercial airline pilots attempt to takeoff & crash with fatalities on the wrong & too short runway. The list goes on and on. High time as well as low time pilots. Some extra "new fangled" technology in the cockpit, would have appreciated by the passengers.........had the cockpit had them to begin with. It's hard to argue with that.

True enough, there are so many ways to screw up, and it only takes one time. So it's hard to say, before you fly with someone, what the chances are that they will screw up, or what sort of mistake it will be (at least when I'm PIC, I know what to worry about, LOL!). But in the cases you cite, GPS may have prevented disaster, but it could have also been prevented without it. It's an excellent tool, and it might save your bacon, but it's not a substitute for knowing what's ahead or knowing the runway heading, length of runway, and your performance capability under that load and conditions. Or knowing that you are about to override common sense with get-there-itis. People do the same dumb things with GPS aboard all the time... which is pathetic, because obviously, it should enhance your situational awareness. It is clearly a tool to increase the capability you have as PIC. Not saying I believe "gizmo dependence" was the root cause in such cases... just saying that it will not always make up for PIC error, and it can definitely detract from PIC decision-making when there is no skill being applied other than using that device. There's a big difference between having at least a clue where you are based on the fundamentals, then using GPS to confirm or fine-tune that guess, and not really thinking about it at all, habitually just letting the GPS tell you (and blindly trusting what it tells you). One can not always tell, like I said, but I'd prefer to trust my hide to someone who takes the first approach, regardless of the equipment or conditions. Obviously, I'd be leery of someone too proud to accept that they are wrong and the GPS is right; that's just as bad as having no clue how to navigate without it.

P.S. --- Don't be teaching a Garmin 1000 system at night, with a mountain straight ahead. I've already discussed this with a person who helped implement new procedures too avoid this type of accident. Has something to do with CAP, for those who don't know.

Not familiar with that story, but it supports my general point: that system should be just the thing to help you avoid terrain at night, but if you're still learning to use it (or are busy teaching it), it could kill you if you don't leave yourself enough wiggle room.
Before terrain-reporting GPS, pilots sometimes flew into terrain, sometimes not. This is still true. Like the G1000 training flight you mention, sometimes it goes badly even when most of the attention is on the GPS itself! Despite the incredible reliability and accuracy of GPS, the key factor in avoiding CFIT is not having a GPS (or synthetic vision, or flight following, for that matter). It takes something else.
Sharper or stronger tools need to be handled more carefully, and without strong basic skills and knowledge, they don't guarantee good results.

 

[weilke]

I just drew a 846nm line on a map for a VFR trip and I do create checkpoints and a log. But those checkpoints tend to be airports at 70-100nm intervals and mostly represent potential intermediate stops. And although I have two independent GPS systems, I like to follow along on the sectional.

 

[weilke]

Not familiar with that story, but it supports my general point: that system should be just the thing to help you avoid terrain at night, but if you're still learning to use it (or are busy teaching it), it could kill you if you don't leave yourself enough wiggle room.
.

50,000hrs of combined flying experience impacted a rock-face right where the magenta line intersected with the light brown on the sectional.

 

[denverpilot]

Not familiar with that story, but it supports my general point: that system should be just the thing to help you avoid terrain at night, but if you're still learning to use it (or are busy teaching it), it could kill you if you don't leave yourself enough wiggle room.

He's referring to the CAP crew of two, both with more than 20,000 hours each, who flew a CAP T182T that was a year old, into Mt. Potosi on a night departure out of North Las Vegas.

No one knows why they worked so hard to avoid the McCarran Class Bravo, but having dealt with McCarran before, let's just say you need to be very clear with them regarding your needs for safety of flight issues vs some of the other more accomodating TRACONs. It's a small valley at airliner speeds and I don't envy those folks trying to wedge everyone in there. They tried to put me closer to terrain at night than I wanted to be, I had to say "unable", once. We worked out what they needed, which was for me to say I had the ten-bejillion candlepower landing lights of a Southwest 737 in sight across the valley.

The CAP crew chose to avoid the Bravo, slowing their climb, and put the aircraft into the mountain. No one knows why they didn't use the terrain features of the G1000. The official report said the aircraft "wasn't equipped" with the TAWS option.

If you ask my opinion it probably came out of the factory with one year of free TAWS and all the other goodies turned on, and CAP pilots in NV are as cheap as CAP pilots here. When those goodies expire, no one's paying to re-up them unless it happens at the Squadron level. TAWS, XM WX, SafeTaxi... All expired. My guess anyway.

I will say I have no proof of that though, other than knowledge of the local aircraft G1000 having gone a while with expired stuff.

It really should be something factored in as a MX cost nationally. But it's not AFAIK. Like I said, a Squadron can pay to turn that stuff back on through Squadron dues, but most won't because the aircraft can be rotated to new locations at any time.

Mandatory software upgrades sometimes seem to include new licenses/extensions to the features, but you really don't know on a per-aircraft basis until you get in and see what's active. I hear our toys are back on in the local Squadron's bird, but haven't been out there to see for myself.

There's a distinct "aww, shucks... We don't need any of that fancy computerized stuff anyhow" feel around here from some pilots. Others are the exact opposite and love the G1000 and know it cold but won't buck the system or pony up for feature renewals.

Anyway, that accident is classic CFIT by a highly experienced crew. Like most CFIT, completely avoidable, so we all scratch our heads and wonder what they were thinking.

And something to keep in mind buying anything with all the toys like the G1000 and similar systems is that if you're serious about owning the advanced stuff, be willing and able to pay to keep the features turned on. Modern avionics have recurring costs nowadays.

 

[DutchessFlier]

I just drew a 846nm line on a map for a VFR trip and I do create checkpoints and a log. But those checkpoints tend to be airports at 70-100nm intervals and mostly represent potential intermediate stops. And although I have two independent GPS systems, I like to follow along on the sectional.

I tend to call then "pee" stops and make the flight plans on fltplan.com with no more than 2.5 to 3.0 hour legs.

The biological equivalent of an E6B and a GPS/WAAS for old people like me, sorry to say, but it's true.....

 

[dmccormack]

Use the tools appropriate to the conditions, distance, and level of expertise.

 

[MN_Flyer]

Sometimes technology fails. Those LCD screens on the fancy GPS units don't last forever and it is good to have a backup plan, even for VFR flights.

You don't necessarily need to plan your trip to the second, but you should always have a good general idea of where you are at in relation to the nearest airport and the obstacles around you. The more tools that are in your bag, the better off you are.

 

[steingar]

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I rarely do the pilotage chores I should for flights short and large. I do have a backup for my GPS, and a backup for my backup. Last time I did it was fro the Winwood fly-in, as I was less than certain about my navigation. Old skills came back and I found it just fine.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I bought paper sectionals, three of them, and had them folded open but behind me. I printed flight plans, then made new ones based on my flight down.... added two more way points going home to skirt the charlie. Had clip boards for me and my passenger to time the legs in case I decided it was safer to refuel mid flight. Printed google air photos of runways so I could figure out the airports. Had a GPS on the yoke and foreflight on the iPad with GPS. With all this damned planning, I almost pierced the delta area without even thinking, uh oh, didn't PLAN my descent. Dumb, dumb, dumb. So I circled and came down to near TPA, looking for the airport which I totally should have had in sight already.

Just goes to show that even with a ton of planning you still forget stuff. So a pilot that sucks at cross countries and navigation still sucks with all the cool tools. Oh and we totally thought runway 11 was 29 until I was close enough to SEE the numbers. Yes I am that lame. I have literally 4 compasses on board.

Argh.

One day I'll get better.

 

[spiderweb]

In my area, I -only- fly IFR if I'm doing an X-C.

For those flights, I use AOPA's flight planner, and print out the nav logs. It has most of the calculations I need. I do use both VFR and IFR charts, and I do mark my time over waypoints.

If any of that fails, the G1000 is a good backup.

 

[gismo]

I bought paper sectionals, three of them, and had them folded open but behind me. I printed flight plans, then made new ones based on my flight down.... added two more way points going home to skirt the charlie. Had clip boards for me and my passenger to time the legs in case I decided it was safer to refuel mid flight. Printed google air photos of runways so I could figure out the airports. Had a GPS on the yoke and foreflight on the iPad with GPS. With all this damned planning, I almost pierced the delta area without even thinking, uh oh, didn't PLAN my descent. Dumb, dumb, dumb. So I circled and came down to near TPA, looking for the airport which I totally should have had in sight already.

Just goes to show that even with a ton of planning you still forget stuff. So a pilot that sucks at cross countries and navigation still sucks with all the cool tools. Oh and we totally thought runway 11 was 29 until I was close enough to SEE the numbers. Yes I am that lame. I have literally 4 compasses on board.

Argh.

One day I'll get better.

Calling the PC and tablet applications "Flight Planners" is a misnomer. They are "Flight Planning Tools" that can assist the PILOT when planning a flight. IOW they can make the task easier but not necessarily better.

 

[dell30rb]

no, I don't do IFR. I like to see our beautiful country.

Most IFR flights are 95% VMC anyway. Its not like you are required to fly in the clouds the whole time. Changing altitude or heading to stay out of the clouds is as easy as keying the mic and asking the controller.

What is nice about IFR - when you are crusing in smooth air with a tailwind way up high and the deck below you goes from scattered to broken.. and you don't start worrying about getting stuck on top

 

[weilke]

What is nice about IFR - when you are crusing in smooth air with a tailwind way up high and the deck below you goes from scattered to broken.. and you don't start worrying about getting stuck on top

If you are instrument rated and current, you won't get stuck even flying in VFR.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The arguments against technology are always rooted in the fear of having to learn something new and not wanting to spend the money on it.

Haven't been following this thread much until it was resurrected, but I must disagree with Henning and LAdamson here.

I love technolgy and embrace it myself, but folks who are entirely dependent on technology with no solid grounding in the basic fundamentals are waiting for their luck to run out.

I say this from over 15 years of experience with dealing with the technology issue in the maritime world.

I came from a merchant marine background - part of that gave me a solid navigation education. Used it initially sailing as a Third Mate and then I went on active duty in the Navy. Since then I've seen alot of other guys who came from merchant marine backgrounds and I have seen plenty of stock Navy folks who grew up in the GPS world. The ones that grew up with nothing but GPS are lost without it. They might as well be in a submarine, because they become fixated on the screen - it is their comfort. It is all they know. They never got the foundation and can't correlate what they see out the windows with what they see on a moving map. And we have had ships run aground because of crap like that.

I do not argue against technology......I am all for it, but whether you are driving a ship or an airplane, a competent person must have a solid understanding of the basics in order to effectively use technology.

 

[Henning]

Haven't been following this thread much until it was resurrected, but I must disagree with Henning and LAdamson here.

I love technolgy and embrace it myself, but folks who are entirely dependent on technology with no solid grounding in the basic fundamentals are waiting for their luck to run out.

Why is this always a presupposition? I know all of it and use all of it concurrently all the time as most pilots will.

 

[L.Adamson]

Haven't been following this thread much until it was resurrected, but I must disagree with Henning and LAdamson here.

I love technolgy and embrace it myself, but folks who are entirely dependent on technology with no solid grounding in the basic fundamentals are waiting for their luck to run out.

I say this from over 15 years of experience with dealing with the technology issue in the maritime world.

I came from a merchant marine background - part of that gave me a solid navigation education. Used it initially sailing as a Third Mate and then I went on active duty in the Navy. Since then I've seen alot of other guys who came from merchant marine backgrounds and I have seen plenty of stock Navy folks who grew up in the GPS world. The ones that grew up with nothing but GPS are lost without it. They might as well be in a submarine, because they become fixated on the screen - it is their comfort. It is all they know. They never got the foundation and can't correlate what they see out the windows with what they see on a moving map. And we have had ships run aground because of crap like that.

I do not argue against technology......I am all for it, but whether you are driving a ship or an airplane, a competent person must have a solid understanding of the basics in order to effectively use technology.

So....what does that have to do with me? Read this to my wife, and she wonders too...

You're making conclusions that have none to do with fact.

L.Adamson

 

[Henning]

I've seen alot of other guys who came from merchant marine backgrounds and I have seen plenty of stock Navy folks who grew up in the GPS world. The ones that grew up with nothing but GPS are lost without it. They might as well be in a submarine, because they become fixated on the screen - it is their comfort. It is all they know. They never got the foundation and can't correlate what they see out the windows with what they see on a moving map. And we have had ships run aground because of crap like that.

I do not argue against technology......I am all for it, but whether you are driving a ship or an airplane, a competent person must have a solid understanding of the basics in order to effectively use technology.

The issue here sounds more the people doing the training aren't keeping up and getting lazy.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So....what does that have to do with me? Read this to my wife, and she wonders too...

You're making conclusions that have none to do with fact.

L.Adamson

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

Navigation in both the nautical and aeronautical worlds is virtually identical. The only difference between the two is that ship's gyros are precessed to True North vice Magnetic and things happen alot slower on the surface (ships generally travelling a tenth of the speeds of GA).

I use the maritime example because I have the most professional experience there (over 10 ships plus bridge simulators over the span of 15 years and observed a few hundred watchstanders with varying backgrounds). While I have observed far fewer pilots, the few that I have flown with leads me to believe that the problem is the same in both worlds.

What I have seen is that folks who received a solid education in the fundamentals of navigation (ie 4 years at a a merchant marine school or the Naval Academy) were almost always able to function with or without the GPS and were able to correctly identify when the GPS was not working or not configured properly. The rest (NROTC and OCS) who only received a Navy crash course in navigation (maybe a couple weeks) quickly lost whatever basics they learned when they got out to the ship and were entirely depending on the technology/GPS working. They were complete slaves to the track line. No different than some pilots who grew up on GPS and are lost without it....or are so focused on the magenta line that they aren't able to use other methods to identify that they have improperly configured the gps and the magenta is not taking them where they think it is.

I say this and I called you out, because my impression based on some posts you have made around here, is that you seem to think technology is a be all/end all and that because techology has become so advanced, the old-school basics are insignificant and no longer relevant. That could not be farther from the truth. As far as facts - my conclusions are based on 15 years of personal experience/observation as a watchstander, training officer and training assessor.

If I have misunderstood your position, I aplogize.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The issue here sounds more the people doing the training aren't keeping up and getting lazy.

There is some of that, but the bigger problem in the Navy is that the curriculum and training standards have been dummed down by the reliance on GPS.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why is this always a presupposition? I know all of it and use all of it concurrently all the time as most pilots will.

I don't think it HAS to be a presupposition, but I have unfortunately seen it work out that way.

You use it all the time because you have been flying long enough that you HAD to know the basics before you found that life could be a whole lot easier with the new tech. You likely embraced tech, but just like your example of looking out the windows to avoid busting airspace, you found that basic skills has its place.

I can take a nautical chart of a harbor and select a bearing line off a navaid and I know that as long as I don't go on the wrong side of that bearing line....I cannot run my ship aground. I don't need to fixate on the GPS track. I can be doing other things while navigating....like looking out for traffic. The poor chap on watch with me who only knows tech.....he can't do that.....he has to stare at the track line.

 

[Henning]

I don't think it HAS to be a presupposition, but I have unfortunately seen it work out that way.

It doesn't have anything to do with GPS though. We had pilots who couldn't navigate worth a p-ss before GPS, they never got better, they never learned how to do it. They will always exist, they should just carry 3 GPSs and spare batteries. All GPS does is provides information required for safety of flight in the simplest, fastest, most accurate method of getting that information.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It doesn't have anything to do with GPS though. We had pilots who couldn't navigate worth a p-ss before GPS, they never got better, they never learned how to do it.

That is true. However, I think GPS just makes it easier for those folks to go further and potentially get further into trouble.

Don't get me wrong - I am in no way arguing against GPS or technology in general - I fully embrace it. I just don't like the idea that some push forward that because technology is so great, we don't need to know any of that ancient stuff.

 

[Henning]

That is true. However, I think GPS just makes it easier for those folks to go further and potentially get further into trouble.

Don't get me wrong - I am in no way arguing against GPS or technology in general - I fully embrace it. I just don't like the idea that some push forward that because technology is so great, we don't need to know any of that ancient stuff.

They're at the same risk regardless. The chances are they do everything as haphazardly so the whole 'non GPS' navigational competence issue becomes such a small fraction of the whole danger package they are to themselves that it disappears into insignificance. The reality is that luck and general safety of aircraft keeps them safe, the GPS just helps.

The ancient techniques of visual pilotage and ded reckoning with a compass stuff always sticks around, but why drill the extra time to master ancient technology that is no longer primary or even in use, or do you spend the extra time teaching them how to use the GPS correctly especially with advance radios? Teach them all the things they can figure with all that extra information?

 

[denverpilot]

The only difference between the two is that ship's gyros are precessed to True North vice Magnetic and things happen alot slower on the surface (ships generally travelling a tenth of the speeds of GA).

I learned something today. True north, huh? Interesting. Makes sense too.

The latter part of your comments reminds me of the quote attributed to an SR-71 driver... "You haven't been lost, until you've been lost at Mach 3."

 

[dmccormack]

The ancient techniques of visual pilotage and ded reckoning with a compass stuff always sticks around, but why drill the extra time to master ancient technology that is no longer primary or even in use, or do you spend the extra time teaching them how to use the GPS correctly especially with advance radios? Teach them all the things they can figure with all that extra information?

Because even GPS is based on maps and unless the pilot can understand the relationship between actual terrain and replicated content, he will forever be one magenta line from really lost.

 

[Henning]

Because even GPS is based on maps and unless the pilot can understand the relationship between actual terrain and replicated content, he will forever be one magenta line from really lost.

Not if you don't enter a route or destination.

 

[dmccormack]

Not if you don't enter a route or destination.

Right, then he's just plain lost.

 

[L.Adamson]

Because even GPS is based on maps and unless the pilot can understand the relationship between actual terrain and replicated content, he will forever be one magenta line from really lost.

Big splash of red, with blinking "Xs", as well as an audio warning of "terrain, terrain"............means Turn Now, or die! Pretty simple, really...

L.Adamson

 

[Henning]

Right, then he's just plain lost.

No, he is in position on a moving map that is drawn like other VFR charts. The difference here is that as they fly, every time they look down, they visually correlate what's out the window with what those features look like on a chart. Students use the charts on a few lessons at the beginning then their cross countries, but the vast majority of their flying does not involve looking at a chart. If they fly a moving map in the interim time between those they need the chart they will learn it much more thoroughly by the time they have 40 hrs.

 

[L.Adamson]

Let me see if I can break this down for you.

Navigation in both the nautical and aeronautical worlds is virtually identical. The only difference between the two is that ship's gyros are precessed to True North vice Magnetic and things happen alot slower on the surface (ships generally travelling a tenth of the speeds of GA).

I use the maritime example because I have the most professional experience there (over 10 ships plus bridge simulators over the span of 15 years and observed a few hundred watchstanders with varying backgrounds). While I have observed far fewer pilots, the few that I have flown with leads me to believe that the problem is the same in both worlds.

What I have seen is that folks who received a solid education in the fundamentals of navigation (ie 4 years at a a merchant marine school or the Naval Academy) were almost always able to function with or without the GPS and were able to correctly identify when the GPS was not working or not configured properly. The rest (NROTC and OCS) who only received a Navy crash course in navigation (maybe a couple weeks) quickly lost whatever basics they learned when they got out to the ship and were entirely depending on the technology/GPS working. They were complete slaves to the track line. No different than some pilots who grew up on GPS and are lost without it....or are so focused on the magenta line that they aren't able to use other methods to identify that they have improperly configured the gps and the magenta is not taking them where they think it is.

I say this and I called you out, because my impression based on some posts you have made around here, is that you seem to think technology is a be all/end all and that because techology has become so advanced, the old-school basics are insignificant and no longer relevant. That could not be farther from the truth. As far as facts - my conclusions are based on 15 years of personal experience/observation as a watchstander, training officer and training assessor.

If I have misunderstood your position, I aplogize.

Here is my position. I get sick and tired of all these references to pilot zombies flying the "magenta line". Sure, some will, just like pilots in the past who failed to be serious enough in their navigation duties.

In the meantime, myself, and many like me, will be much more informed in the course of flight, due to the magenta line, and the availability of real time information that's available with it (weather, terrain, fuel monitoring, etc).

Just re-read a 2004 statement on the Student Pilot forum, from a CFI who felt that GPS has no business in a cockpit of a student pilot.

" GPS *is* a toy, albeit a very pretty and seductive one. VOR is our system. "

My question is..... does this CFI still feel this way? Is this CFI still around?
How many other CFI's teach in this manner?

IMO, if there are still many CFI's who take this stance, and I know that there are some... then it's time they start teaching the future, instead of pushing an electronic navigation system, that became available 60+ years in the past. Satellite navigation and the precision that comes with it, is here to stay.

I don't have a problem with VORs, as they're still around. Just don't push an agenda, that GPS is a lazy form of navigation. It's not by any means! It's a much more precision form of navigation than VORs could ever have hoped to be. It's time that CFIs, who are somewhat opposed to GPS, to get on the stick and teach appropriate flight planning, and use of maps to go along with it. And if the CFI needs a bit more training with various GPS equipment, then do so! I also happen to know that some instructors don't know the GPS systems as well as they'd like. Makes it hard to teach a student.....doesn't it?

L.Adamson

 

[Henning]

Rejecting and resisting the future and clinging to the past are great failings in humanity, it's why we're in the position we're in. We are so resistant to change we'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas or blow up the other side of the world to make sure we get what we want of it than think about doing something else.

Why would you think people would be any more rational when it comes to stuff that doesn't degrade their lives on a daily basis?

 

[Captain]

I'll typically flight plan on FltPln.com, ForeFlight, WingX Pro, and AOPA Flight Planner. I'll print out the plan from FltPln.com, which will include waypoints 100nm - 200nm apart. If the flight is less than 5 hours, I don't worry about fuel, because I carry more than 7 hours fuel. After that, I'm going to be monitoring fuel burn, fuel level, and ETE like a hawk. En route, I'm doing what Henning suggests, matching the features I see out of the window against the charts. I am now displaying the charts on the iPad. I had recently been leaning towards eliminating paper charts, but my 6+ hour flight put a scare into me, as my iPad was warning about less than 15% power. Since then, I've bought a couple external battery rechargers, but there's always the possibility that my iPad will freeze en route, so I'm going to move back towards having paper backups. They may not be current, however. I should note that all(?) my flights over 150NM are IFR.

All that said, the exercise of doing very closely spaced flight plane was invaluable. I am able to "reality check" the plans being spewed out by the automated tools, and keep a good sense of where I am while flying. Don't skimp on those exercises during your private training!

Isn't Foreflight a 'user license' and not a device license? If it is then maybe you could load just local charts on an iPhone or other smart phone and use that as a backup.

Just a thought. I actually have two iPads (mine and the company one) so I feel a lot better about ditching paper. An AC outlet in the cockpit helps too.

 

[dell30rb]

FF lets you put charts on both iPhone and iPad.

This is the setup I have. Also carry paper charts but I am planning on ditching those soon

 

[Sac Arrow]

I have to chuckle at some of these discussions. It seems that some feel that real pilots use hand drawn maps and weights hanging from a string.

 

[Henning]

I have to chuckle at some of these discussions. It seems that some feel that real pilots use hand drawn maps and weights hanging from a string.

I did a bunch of survey/photography work for a geologist out west years ago before GPS & moving maps, you should have seen the maps the guy gave me all marked up lol. My Ag instructor was surprised I already knew about and was experienced with navigating Platte charts.

A 'real pilot' can navigate using anything. A 'real pilot' also defaults to the best method available.

 

[gprellwitz]

Isn't Foreflight a 'user license' and not a device license? If it is then maybe you could load just local charts on an iPhone or other smart phone and use that as a backup.

Just a thought. I actually have two iPads (mine and the company one) so I feel a lot better about ditching paper. An AC outlet in the cockpit helps too.

Kind of a "user license." They officially support loading it on one (1) iPad and one (1) iPhone. Unofficially, I believe they will allow you to install it on two (2) iPads, but don't advertise that, and it is definitely NOT intended to allow its use in two different cockpits!

To be honest, I wish Hilton Software would allow a similar policy for WingX Pro.

 

[Captain]

Kind of a "user license." They officially support loading it on one (1) iPad and one (1) iPhone. Unofficially, I believe they will allow you to install it on two (2) iPads, but don't advertise that, and it is definitely NOT intended to allow its use in two different cockpits!

To be honest, I wish Hilton Software would allow a similar policy for WingX Pro.

I assume you mean at the same time.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Here is my position. I get sick and tired of all these references to pilot zombies flying the "magenta line". Sure, some will, just like pilots in the past who failed to be serious enough in their navigation duties.

In the meantime, myself, and many like me, will be much more informed in the course of flight, due to the magenta line, and the availability of real time information that's available with it (weather, terrain, fuel monitoring, etc).

Just re-read a 2004 statement on the Student Pilot forum, from a CFI who felt that GPS has no business in a cockpit of a student pilot.

" GPS *is* a toy, albeit a very pretty and seductive one. VOR is our system. "

My question is..... does this CFI still feel this way? Is this CFI still around?
How many other CFI's teach in this manner?

IMO, if there are still many CFI's who take this stance, and I know that there are some... then it's time they start teaching the future, instead of pushing an electronic navigation system, that became available 60+ years in the past. Satellite navigation and the precision that comes with it, is here to stay.

I don't have a problem with VORs, as they're still around. Just don't push an agenda, that GPS is a lazy form of navigation. It's not by any means! It's a much more precision form of navigation than VORs could ever have hoped to be. It's time that CFIs, who are somewhat opposed to GPS, to get on the stick and teach appropriate flight planning, and use of maps to go along with it. And if the CFI needs a bit more training with various GPS equipment, then do so! I also happen to know that some instructors don't know the GPS systems as well as they'd like. Makes it hard to teach a student.....doesn't it?

L.Adamson

Ok, I hear what you are saying and as I mentioned before, I am not one of those people. I do agree with your point as you have just stated. GPS is most definitely not a toy to me it is a very useful tool in my kit (I fly my 170 with a Garmin Aera 510 and iPad with Jepp View and Foreflight plus all the legacy equipment so I can legally file IFR).

I fully agree that GPS and advanced avionics should be taught to private pilots, but (based on my experience in navigation education) I don't believe that we should throw out the fundamentals in order to do that. Both need to be taught and understood (and I'm not just talking VORs...I am talking dead reckoning, pilotage too....basic VFR nav).

I don't believe that GPS itself is a lazy form of navigation, but I do believe that without a decent level of basic navigation understanding, a person is more suceptible to being lazy about navigation and it becomes a crutch. That is exactly the problem I have seen. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use it or teach it, but recognizing possible pitfalls is an important part in developing an awareness that will prevent those pitfalls from biting you in the empennage.

 

[Henning]

Fundamentals of Nav= DST & Pilotage. VOR, ADF and GPS are advanced nav. There is no reason that someone should think "Oh VOR isn't a crutch but GPS is", they are exactly the same crutches when it comes to fundamentals of navigation, and there is no reason to prefer VOR for your students crutch than GPS. Both will tell you where you are in a few moments. There are several reasons to prefer GPS as the crutch/safety besides it being what they'll be using going forward.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Fundamentals of Nav= DST & Pilotage. VOR, ADF and GPS are advanced nav. There is no reason that someone should think "Oh VOR isn't a crutch but GPS is", they are exactly the same crutches when it comes to fundamentals of navigation, and there is no reason to prefer VOR for your students crutch than GPS. Both will tell you where you are in a few moments. There are several reasons to prefer GPS as the crutch/safety besides it being what they'll be using going forward.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD