The problem is that most PPL’s haven’t learned to intercept a VOR radial, …
??? VOR navigation was already part of the PPL syllabus when I did mine 26 years ago. It even had to be demonstrated on the checkride.
It is also perfectly legal to use radio navigation, and of course a GPS in these circumstances.
GPS is radionavigation, just like VOR, ADF and DME. GPS was already part of the PPL syllabus under JAR-FCL and it is also part of the PPL under EASA part-FCL: http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AMC%20and%20GM%20to%20Part-FCL.pdf
Even the Sailplane Syllabus has Satellite navigation!
Fattony, I’m with you 100% on using GPS as primary for VFR, with radar or feature crawling as backups as appropriate to the location and airspace.
The wonder of portable GPS in ‘my world’ is that you can use the technology inexpensively and without affecting the plane. That way the plane and it’s panel can stay simple and indefinitely maintainable, if VFR is what you want to do. Like LeSving, I’m not very interested in G1000 etc for my plane, but that doesn’t impact use of GPS because portable GPS is so widely available and functional. For many other types of complex technology this is not the case, you end up accepting aircraft cost and maintenance hassle to make your flying ‘simple’ or ‘efficient’ and you may achieve an overall negative result (for me, that is). However with that not being the case for portable non-certified moving map GPS, I’m happy to use it all the time for VFR and replace the system with the latest and greatest every so often – for next to nothing in cost.
PS I certainly did learn VOR navigation as part of FAA private certificate training, and was tested on it. But I’ve not really used it since except to check the VOR receiver in the plane. If I ever replace the radios the VOR receiver will come out.
The way DR is taught during the PPL is that you fly from one landmark to the next, with about 10 min. interval between waypoints. You visually identify the planned landmarks on your route. When you fly over it, you note the Actual Time Over in your nav plan, and set course to the next landmark.
Yes, this is how I was taught ages ago as well. But this is not, or was not, called DR navigation (in the 1:1 translation between Norwegian and English). I would call this basic VFR navigation. DR is a the specific technique used to navigate with no visual clues. The same technique is used in VFR navigation to set the course to a waypoint you still do not see. Hence my confusion of what exactly you were talking about 
DR can be used with no visual clues, only map, compass and a clock and is also a part of the visual flight rules. To do that today, with no GPS and no visual clues, seemed to be a bit “hard core” in my opinion, although perfectly doable.
To be precise here. What we are talking about is Pilotage (according to Wiki). Pilotage combined with DR or pilotage combined with GPS. Old school VFR is pilotage/DR and new school VFR is pilotage/GPS. Still, when flying on top or across the atlantic or a desert or large woods (Sweden ), you cannot use pilotage, but you can use DR. At least you must rely on the DR part much more than the pilotage part. Today, in these situations, you use in fact DR/GPS or DR/classic navigational instrument or both. If we take out the DR part, this will be IFR and cannot be done with only a VFR rating. To take out the DR from PPL and replace it with GPS, would be a very stupid thing to do. We would be restricted like microlights are (No on-top, no crossing of large seas, no night VFR). It is a very stupid idea, and DR is easy, basic stuff, only need some practice every now and then.
If we take out the DR part, this will be IFR and cannot be done with only a VFR rating.
Not exactly. There is no such thing as a “VFR rating”. And as you say, flying according to the visual flight rules (= VFR) on top or at night or over the sea or other featureless terrain is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. It can either be achieved through DR or radionavigation, which has nothing to do with visual flight rules and therefore both are taught in the PPL course. Using radionavigation is not instrument flying. Instrument flying means controlling the attitude and trajectory of the aircraft by sole reference to instruments.
“Still, when flying on top or across the atlantic or a desert or large woods (Sweden ), but you can use DR "
I challenge you to get across any significant body of water by using DR only or as you put it “relying on DR” – see how well that works out :D
OK, but my point still remains. You cannot “legally” fly on top if you don’t know DR. As the rules are, you don’t need any instruments to fly on-top, other than compass, map and a clock because the knowledge of DR is assumed, radionavigation or not. Exchange DR with GPS, and you will need EIFR at minimum and instrumentation accordingly.
I challenge you to get across any significant body of water by using DR only or as you put it “relying on DR” – see how well that works out :D
As I said, a bit “hard core”, but doable as proven hundred years ago Way too hard core for me by the way
Why would you need EIFR if you replace DR with GPS? GPS is compass-map-clock.
May I recall you that 100 years ago what you call “DR with no external reference” was actually “DR with either celestial nav or sextant”. Doable depends on what your comfortable casualty rate is :D
You cannot “legally” fly on top if you don’t know DR
That may be the law in Norway but nowhere else AFAIK.
No European aviation law AFAIK specifies what method one navigates with. What the various regs specify is what equipment is carried. This is a very old debate; search rec.aviation.ifr for “tuna sandwich navigation” for example
but doable as proven hundred years ago
Yes… but:
So those flights were mostly a physical (human and engine) endurance test.
I don’t know if they used a sextant but if you can keep a sextant still for long enough, it is very accurate. The limit (doable on a solid platform) is about 400m in both latitude and longitude, which is similar to SA-era GPS. Obviously you could not do that on a plane especially while hand flying it, but 100nm in latitude is good enough to hit Ireland which is about 3 degrees.
Why would you need EIFR if you replace DR with GPS? GPS is compass-map-clock.
May I recall you that 100 years ago what you call “DR with no external reference” was actually “DR with either celestial nav or sextant”. Doable depends on what your comfortable casualty rate is :D
Isn’t that the whole reason for this new EIFR? GPS is de facto standard tool in VFR. DR is forgotten, or only something oldies with gray hair and spectacles are doing. No way the authorities (EASA) will allow on-top (VFR) when this is done by people who who need a GPS to know which way is N. So they invent this EIFR because they are told by instructors that “all” aircraft have G-1000 now anyway.
That may be the law in Norway but nowhere else AFAIK.
No European aviation law AFAIK specifies what method one navigates with.
You are right. I looked it up, and the only specification is compass, clock, altitude and speed – ordinary VFR equipment. But, to get a PPL, you will have to know and to demonstrate practical knowledge and use of DR.
Fattony – I like your honesty. I suspect we’re in a transitional phase where some early adapters who fly for a hobby think like us and others, perhaps, who either enjoy it as part of the hobby or are simply institutionalized opt for the more basic forms. Either is fine but DR isn’t going to take us too far from our home field – without turning flying into ‘hard work’.
I’ll edit that… perhaps if you’re an instructor teaching DR 4 hours day in, day out it becomes sub conscious but PPLs flying 12-50hrs p.a – it will will not achieve the same subconscious status.
