Completely different experiences here. At least the school I work with, whatever avionics is inside an airplane will be subject to a familiarisation seminar and subsequent training in flight. When we did the upgrade of the Mooney, we organized a one evening workshop for all pilots and instructors, thereafter all instructors and pilots in that succession had to go and to a familiarisation flight. Anything else is simply going against the best use of equipment principle or even worse, against safety. If someone has a GNS430 in his plane and doesn’t know how to operate it, he won’t know how to set the com/nav part as well properly.
These guys do PPL training in Aspen equipped Jodels. Obviously it does help that all the flight instructors are airline pilots.
Likewise the school at ZRH, most of their airplanes are G1000 by now, or have GNS430 e.t.c. They do courses on those, PPL’s will do them while in training for the PPL and they will learn to use them. Doing something else in this time and age with the airspace structure we have is simply unclever to put it mildly. I’d also be surprised if someone here got away during a PPL examination flight or any other check flight who can’t operate the on board equipment whatever it is.
I took my Private check ride in a C152 11 years ago because I needed to demonstrate use of a Nav-Comm 
I explained to the examiner that my plane had 65 HP and no electrical system, and he smiled and thought that was great. I noticed that in addition to testing me very rigorously to PTS he gave me some advice on flying my plane. His main job at that time was chief pilot for a famous Wall St. type, but he had flown everything since he was 16. His main interest was clearly to make sure I was competent to the level of the PTS, and that in addition I had fun and didn’t susbsequently kill myself.
It worked, and the plane continues to fly in some of the world’s the world’s densest airspace with one portable comm radio and a portable GPS. Avionics don’t hold the plane up.
I think GPS fits in nicely with that non-gold plated, fun kind of flying. It’s a core capability, more so than the comm radio, and for that reason GPS should be part of the private pilot test standards.
I don’t get it. [I mean the "everything-should-be-mandatory brigade, not the last few posts…]
The purpose of the PPL is to teach people how to fly without endangering anyone, and arrive where they want to go. For this, VOR, ADF, proper use of advanced GPS navigators, etc. are NOT required. Given congested airspace, one could argue that proper use of a moving map GPS with airspace data should be taught and mandatory, but everything else is – while good to know for the pilot – in excess of what is required. Maybe CDI tracking is such a basic skill that this should be included as well, but really?
It is reasonable to expect at least superficial knowledge about the stuff installed in the aircraft one flies, but I can’t see why you should not be able to get a PPL in an aircraft with the legally required minimum VFR instrumentation (which does not even include a direction indicator!). If you can make it there and back again on your solo cross country trips, and pass the test, that’ll do.
If that pilot then goes straight into a G1000 aircraft, learn about it then.
The purpose of the PPL is to teach people how to fly without endangering anyone, and arrive where they want to go. For this, VOR, ADF, proper use of advanced GPS navigators, etc. are NOT required. Given congested airspace, one could argue that proper use of a moving map GPS with airspace data should be taught and mandatory, but everything else is – while good to know for the pilot – in excess of what is required. Maybe CDI tracking is such a basic skill that this should be included as well, but really?
I’d agree that the basic pilot qualification should require only knowing the basics. And I haven’t used or needed any navigational tool but portable GPS since I got my private certificate. But I see portable GPS as analogous to an E-6B, and ubiquitous for VFR flying today. Enough so that its become a core skill.
Peter wrote:
BTW, I didn’t write […] and the other text I posted in italics.
I know. Still, I wanted to comment that part.
tmo wrote:
Wouldn’t it make more sense to limit the student to “guaranteed to be installed” equipment?
Well, my focus was on calling it cheating. It obviously implies training – student isn’t in a position to do whatever he wants. Ability to provide consistent instruction (same instructor, same configuration of aircraft) is in my view a sign of a good training provider. How it’s achieved is up to them. As for which units you should be able to operate – you should be able to operate what is installed in the configuration which is planned to be used for the exam. If you know how to operate other units, good. There is really no need for the instructor to teach you how to operate every single GPS in the fleet. But it’s desirable to do all GPS related instruction on one model and it should be the model that’s in the configuration you plan to do the exam in, if there is one. Taking into consideration variations between installations, if there are any.
Yes, you still have to be able to fly without it. But that’s really no reason why you shouldn’t be taught how to use it.
you still have to be able to fly without it.
I would not be able to and I have 2000+hrs.
Well, not usefully. No way would I even think about flying from Shoreham to say Wellesbourne. If there was no GPS I would give up flying, because the half life of my license would be measured in weeks. OK; that particular route can be VOR/DME-navigated, and you can drive it in the time it takes to fly it (with the hassle at both ends) but in reality most European VFR flights (i.e. the interesting stuff) can’t be done just with VOR/DME.
My PPL skills test was along the coast to somewhere near Lydd. Blindingly obvious where I was because one could see the coast the whole way. And now, when I just want to burn some avgas, maybe with a passenger, I do the same. One almost cannot screw up.
So I am totally not surprised most people chuck it flying almost immediately. Many have told me they gave up because they had no confidence in their ability to get from A to B.
You see manifestations of this everywhere. In the UK, most PPLs do short burger runs, despite having the huge advantage of the English language. In France, I am told nearly all GA activity is ~50nm runs from one club to the next, some food/wine and then back (and on my many flights there I have seen nothing to the contrary). Germany… one German pilot told me when he tried to organise a fly-in, most refused to go outside Germany.
This translates to GA delivering really crap value for money – and this is after after the student has dropped ~10k at the school!
But that’s really no reason why you shouldn’t be taught how to use it.
I think that human nature ensures that once the ink has dried on the PPL, no further training is desired. And I can understand that. I didn’t enjoy most of my PPL training. The endless stuff with the stupid slide rule. The shagged out planes. The list is endless. I was fortunate in being able to extract myself from it in 2002 (1 year after the PPL) and get my own plane.
Anyway, one can have a moan. Nothing is going to change because everybody except the customers will fight a rearguard action to make sure of it.
Making GPS examinable on checkrides would be great, because every school which modernises its fleet would be forced to train GPS.
The gotcha then would be this: currently, most UK ATPL FTOs carefully ensure GPS does not get tested, by running with a database 1 or more cycles out of date. (I have this from one IR FE). The examiner guidelines would have to allow for this and require a demo of the usage even if the database is not current. I think, for non-IR flight, that is acceptable.
Peter wrote:
If there was no GPS I would give up flying, because the half life of my license would be measured in weeks. OK; that particular route can be VOR/DME-navigated, and you can drive it in the time it takes to fly it (with the hassle at both ends) but in reality most European VFR flights (i.e. the interesting stuff) can’t be done just with VOR/DME.Oh, you spoiled youth! (Figuratively speaking.)
In the 80’s before getting my IR, I flew VFR from Uppsala to Frankfurt and back (670 NM each way) using VOR/DME, NDB and maps. It was really not difficult.
The gotcha then would be this: currently, most UK ATPL FTOs carefully ensure GPS does not get tested, by running with a database 1 or more cycles out of date. (I have this from one IR FE). The examiner guidelines would have to allow for this and require a demo of the usage even if the database is not current. I think, for non-IR flight, that is acceptable.
For VFR you don’t need an updated database. Not for IR either as long as you only do B-RNAV.
Peter wrote:
but in reality most European VFR flights (i.e. the interesting stuff) can’t be done just with VOR/DME.
Now you know there are some luddites who fly round Europe VFR in a GPS/Radio Navigation free environment – albeit at M0.12, and it is quite satisfying and interesting
I have absolutely no idea of the commercial/approved/certified GPS apparatus, but have a suspicion they are very very different one from another. So much that a generic GNSS training, or even certification, would be little realistic. The one thing that I can imagine would be extra’s on the basic SEP license, such as “G1000 certified pilot”.
With reference to my post here here is another instalment:
Now you know there are some luddites who fly round Europe VFR in a GPS/Radio Navigation free environment – albeit at M0.12, and it is quite satisfying and interesting
Sure it can be done. The point I am hoping to make is that if you want to generate newcomers to GA and retain them, you have to drag the scene into the late 20th century.
A number of pilots will always enjoy traditional flying – that’s great. Like aerobatics, there is something for everybody.
But it isn’t going to revitalise GA. To get people into this game you have to make flying into something where they don’t sh*t themselves if they fail to find some funny shaped lake with a village next to it, and on the way back to their base they are asked to contact Gatwick Director on xxx.xx for a “chat”. I happen to be familiar with that, too (via not flying with a chart which came out a few weeks earlier)
