Peter wrote:
To be fair, MH, it depends on where and when someone did their primary training.
Yes of course, that was my point. I would never blame tinfoilhat for the training he has gotten. He would not know. But he should not bark at those who would give him sincere help, because they (!) would know of the shortcomings of some flight schools. My post didn’t aim at learning to operate a box or skydemon, rather the tactical implications of the useage and / or in general an attitude to self-teaching. (He who teaches himself has a fool for a master). Sometimes you have to, and tinfoilhat said he is glad to take instruction, but i am always careful when people new in aviation say they want to figure stuff out by themselves. Chances are great that they miss something.
Perhaps I am the one, barking up the wrong tree though.
mh wrote:
He who teaches himself has a fool for a master
Thank you, that will go into my list of quotes for posternity.
OK mh, I apologies for the second half of my last post. It added more heat than light.
Now we are moving on to the subject of what a newly minted PPL should understand and how he should fly. We will have to agree to differ on how likely it is that a PPL student will be taught to use GPS. I don’t think I flew more than 1 hour in a GPS equiped plane pre-ppl. If there was GPS in the other planes it was not turned on, or if it was it was not brought to my attention. In fact, now I come to think about it, I am pretty sure I was told it was not allowed for flight planning but you could smuggle one on board for your solo navs. It sounds rediculous but I am embarressed to admit to an FI that I use Skydemon for any part of nav.
" without paying attention to LFR95"
I don’t understand. How can you not pay attention to LFR95? That is the whole point. Otherwise it’s just an excercise in drawing a line on a map. How many of your students would look at LFR95 and associated notams and say "I am not going through there, it’s too complicated. I’ll go around it to the north…oh no, too mountainous..I’ll go south…eecks! Look at all those prohibited zones…I’ll go over it…oh no it’s all class D. I’ll have another go at circuits and think about it tomorrow.
Now that I have flown it via the VFR Route it is pretty trivial navwise, but it certainly didn’t look it to this novice. That’s the authentic voice of a low time PPL trying to spread his wings for the first time on a new area. If that makes me a “troll” or “totally unaware” ( not your words mh) then I suggest it’s been too long since some of you were in my shoes.
tmo wrote:
Here’s one reason to seriously consider a high wing plane. :-)
awesome 
I am starting a new thread on GPS in PPL training… just waiting for some people to authorise my posting of what they sent me.
As regards the VFR routes, they do indeed appear e.g. here (the 2015 French 1:1M chart) going past Nice at 500ft (I didn’t find many others although apparently the 1:250k chart has more of them)
but I don’t see what the big deal is unless you want to check out the bikinis on the beach? Anybody who can read can see that you can fly OCAS just a bit further out to the sea. Much of the route is beyond glide range anyway. I would not blame anybody for ignoring these routes, and if you want to fly close-in, and it takes you into CAS, you have to get ATC clearance, and they will tell you to fly at 500ft or whatever – as per the scenic leg here (a nice trip, almost exactly a year ago).
tinfoilhat, you are bringing up good points and understanding the learning gaps which you are surfacing through flying is invaluable.
For example I find VFR route planning more challenging than producing an IFR plan, and I enjoy the challenge. A few of us have gone somewhat full circle in our personal flying, having worked our way to flying cross country IFR on a regular basis, back to a day VFR only puddle jumper. In part economics, in part what we want to get out of aviation.
With this perspective I think the well meant advice of getting an aircraft that basically fulfills the mission without going overboard, is not condescending, but will save you a ton of money. It is not a question of your not being capable, only you know this and the examiner signing you off, it is trying to save you money. Thinking of airline pilots who own planes themselves, I can think of a few who own a simple 172. Which in my 80 knot speedster is a very advanced machine. Unfortunately 500nm is a long day in a 172, hence the suggestion of a 182.
Peter wrote:
they do ineed appear e.g. here, going past Nice at 500ft
Indeed… and notice they run in opposite directions at the same altitude! What do you do at SW when two planes are on a collision course and you have a mountain at 1610ft to the north. Ask me how I know
I should add that I was with an FI on that occasion. We had the whole of the Med to turn into whilst the other poor guy was faced with a mountain. Maybe it wouldn’t have phased you guys, but “traffic at 12 o’clock” certainly gets my attention now.
Neil wrote:
I think you need a 182, with G1000. With the Garmin GFC700 autopilot is best but I think you might be tight on budget.
I think that is the conclusion I am coming to. Silvaire said it on the first page. I should have listened to you Silvaire, it would have saved me a lot of grief
Peter wrote:
I am starting a new thread on GPS in PPL training
Sorry @Peter, I just did … haven’t read your comment before posting. Feel free to move it, though.
[no problem – I was waiting for something else so I added my bit to yours]
