Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What stops the creation of a "high end" PPL school in Europe?

I tried to get a summary of GA statistics for Germany (Northern Europe weather, large, by European standards, GA community), and in particular VFR into IMC. Anecdoctally from this forum joys a more robust attitude to PPL training in less than ideal conditions.

Was not able to find anything but hopefully someone has better luck.

I did find this short summary for 2002-2006, which seemed to indicate quite a sobering level of GA fatalities, it didn’t seem right to me at roughly 3 to 5 times UK?

http://www.esam.aero/downloads/ecam08p/No%2033%20Neuhaus.pdf

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

It is interesting how we today completely rely on a moving map application (ANP, SD, RR…) for VFR navigation.

I just recently (9 months ago) converted to Air Nav Pro mostly because due to Jeppesen discontinuing the VFR+GPS series, I considered it as a pain to have to purchase paper charts for other countries than the one in which I live (see how I avoided to use the term “foreign”?). Having done that it is extremely tempting to rely solely on ANP for VFR navigation. Prior to that I used no other means than the radio-navigation instruments installed in the aircraft, a chart and a printed PLOG.

LFPT, LFPN

Peter wrote:

Whether that would stand up in a court I don’t know

Of course it will. Legally it is void of guaranties for any particular purpose. It is simply a device with a some aviation related functionality, but the functionality is by the manufacturer deemed too unreliable to depend upon. It is the same with the Rotax engine. It can really only be used in circumstances where failure of functionality does not cause harm. The exact same legal stand exist for all microlight and experimental homebuilt.

What does it matter? The only difference is that with a failure of a certified GPS, you can sue the manufacturer and win (with a good lawyer on your side, massive amount of money and time, and by the highly unlikely event that Garmin hires a p!ss poor lawyer). With the non-certified device, you can make your case on EuroGA, and within days the bug is fixed for everyone’s gain (or everyone can move on to another hardware, also within days).

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

tmo wrote:

Exposed with an instructor is to me fundamentally different from expected to deal with on one’s own, but what do I know. Wait, I do – I know I wouldn’t want to do a solo in challenging weather. I believe the “solo” vs. “dual” exposure is the key, and only, difference in our thinking.

I’d agree to circuits in challenging weather.

Isn’t it primarily a question of how well trained you’re before you go solo? Instructor isn’t supposed to let you unless you’re ready, can handle it (in his opinion). Would you really prefer to push the limits after you get a licence with only great weather solo experience, or get a proper training from the start?

I agree with boscomantico. I expect people from regions with not that great conditions to be better trained if anything. It’s like teaching someone living in a big city with heavy traffic to drive only while the roads are exceptionally quiet or people living in the mountains or up north only when it’s dry and warm. Doesn’t make sense to me. The fist solo cross-country could be in exceptionally good weather, but all of it?

However, that doesn’t change that not every device is the same from legal standpoint.

Does anyone really think that one GPS is “better” or “more legal” than another for VFR navigation?

There is no requirement to navigate using any particular method, so IMHO the only possible prosecution would be under the “reckless” or “endangerment” provision, and for that you would need to have a rubber duck floating in a bucket of water and using the direction it points as your heading

All the VFR units have a disclaimer basically saying it isn’t to be used for anything at all. Whether that would stand up in a court I don’t know, but I don’t think any PPL pilot flying VFR could use a GPS failure as a defence (and e.g. go for damages from the GPS mfg) simply because the other side would easily show that you were taught map+stopwatch skills in the PPL training so should not have relied on the GPS. IMHO, IANAL, etc… I have never heard of any such case however, which is probably because a GPS almost never fails and when it does, most pilots will either fall back onto some other method, or call up ATC, and if they do a bust they will just take the bollocking and that is as far as it gets.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Martin wrote:

Not long ago they added a third kind of competition, Air Navigation Race

Yes, probably about time someone modernized the event to a more accessible and fun/exciting form.



Yet, it still focus on a skill that has become irrelevant for most PPL pilots (dead reckoning at it’s extreme), so participating today is exclusively for the competition sake. 20 years ago (pre GPS) it was different. It also favorizes stable (sluggish) high wing aircraft = C-172. IMO the focus should be visual navigation in some way or another. Anyway, those who think that navigating through complex airspaces without a GPS is impossible, better think again. A “complex” airspace is nothing compared to the corridors these competition races uses, and even beginners are capable of following them.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

@LeSving Not long ago they added a third kind of competition, Air Navigation Race.

tomjnx wrote:

Too bad those “toys” are almost invariably the better products for VFR.

Some of them are really good. However, that doesn’t change that not every device is the same from legal standpoint.

tomjnx wrote:

You obviously don’t often fly in the alps, do you? That’s just not practical.

It’s practical, just not everywhere. I don’t fly there every day, but I have flown there. Mostly without an engine. And a lot of it without a moving map.

tomjnx wrote:

The disclaimer is only there

– period.

This is what the engine manual for the Rotax 912 ULS say:

Follow this to the letter and you wouldn’t be able to fly very far. Never mind the fact that statistics shows that uncertified (and maintained by end users themselves) Rotax engines are more reliable than certified Lycomings and Continentals.

tomjnx wrote:

because nobody in their sane mind would voluntarily certify their equipment with the authorities, as this would cost humongous amounts of money, ensures that you could never timely fix bugs, and provides no value to the customer.

Exactly. It only means the product is not certified. I wonder how much longer the authorities can keep up this certification charade in the name of safety, reliability, “airworthiness” for light aircraft when the reality shows the opposite to be true again and again – certification strangles any and all attempts of creating new and better technology.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Martin wrote:

It’s no coincidence that there are “toys” which are “for situational awareness only” and “not to be used for navigation”

Too bad those “toys” are almost invariably the better products for VFR.

The disclaimer is only there because nobody in their sane mind would voluntarily certify their equipment with the authorities, as this would cost humongous amounts of money, ensures that you could never timely fix bugs, and provides no value to the customer.

My former TSO C129 navigator crashed multiple times in flight in non-obvious ways. None of the toys I own ever did that to me.

Martin wrote:

You obviously want to fly above a canyon, not inside it.

You obviously don’t often fly in the alps, do you? That’s just not practical.

LSZK, Switzerland

Exposed with an instructor is to me fundamentally different from expected to deal with on one’s own, but what do I know. Wait, I do – I know I wouldn’t want to do a solo in challenging weather. I believe the “solo” vs. “dual” exposure is the key, and only, difference in our thinking.

I’d agree to circuits in challenging weather.

tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland
120 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top