Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1837271
allout wrote:

Utter negligence on the part of the training organisation in sending the the hapless student off without moving map.


It's a point of view, but I wonder how you'd suggest they prepare the student for the navigation tests that have to be flown without a moving map?

Rob P
David Wood, Ben K, Lockhaven liked this
#1837281
allout wrote:Utter negligence on the part of the training organisation in sending the the hapless student off without moving map.


Something of a cheap shot, if I may say. The CAA has not, to my knowledge, definitively clarified its position on the use of moving map technology (MMT) in a student's training. There is an extant requirement that students be instructed in the use of MMT as part of their training. But, notwithstanding what pilots do post-qualification, the CAA's current line is that during ab initio training DR must be taught as the primary means of navigation throughought a student's training, and tested on his test.

The TrainingCom publication muddied the water a little (but potentially helpfully in the long run) by suggesting (and it was only a suggestion) that a candidate should be tested on MMT during his flight test. But until the CAA directs that and makes the appropriate changes to Standards Doc 19, the Flight Examiners Handbook and the Form SRG2128 then it simply isn't possible for FEs to do so in a manner that is consistent and fair.

So I think that criticising the training organisation is a little unfair. They don't write the rules.
Lockhaven liked this
#1837284
Rob P wrote:
allout wrote:

Utter negligence on the part of the training organisation in sending the the hapless student off without moving map.


It's a point of view, but I wonder how you'd suggest they prepare the student for the navigation tests that have to be flown without a moving map?

Rob P


I heartily agree with @allout that negligent is the right description. To send a student on a route that close around controlled airspace without GNSS support is setting the student up for a bust and is unsafe.

All that is required on the PPL skills test is one DR leg as a demonstration of that basic skill. Moving map can be used for the rest of the test.

GNSS can and should be used for all stages of training. As again repeated in the narrative here, it is expected.

If you are at a dinosaur school that denies you it as a student, my advice is to walk away with your money.
Instructor Errant, G-BLEW, flybymike and 1 others liked this
#1837288
I've got a lot of sympathy for the student on this one. I could easily have bolloxed it up exactly like that in my early days of nav.

It must have been howling quite a gale for it to be "much stronger than expected", if expected was 270/20. He'd have been quite uncomfortable, I expect, being bounced around in that, which would have made a huge difference to the workload.

Without GPS, and in a strong wind, the margin of error flying down the gap there is quite small. And looking at the route quite carefully, there's quite a lot of scope for the confirmation bias the report speaks of.

That was my biggest problem when I was learning to navigate - making the ground fit where you'd like to be on the map is often remarkably easy, and I got quite a few massive bollockings from my instructor along the way for doing exactly that.

I was lucky not to make any bad similar mistakes on my own, but I easily could have until I really 'got it', and finished beating that particular tendency out of myself by rigorous application to landmark identification, and then confirmation, checking and double checking.

If I'd turned right at Stanford Reservoir instead of Pitsford, as I might easily have done at that stage if I was tense and feeling a bit sick as I often did in those early days, I can imagine my instructor saying "did you not notice that the enormous town of Northampton wasn't there?".

And I would have felt, quite rightly, like the plonker I would have been, and resolved to do better.

Negligence, though?
Utter negligence on the part of the training organisation in sending the the hapless student off without moving map

....sorry, that's a massive overstatement. How did any of us learn to fly in the last few decades if it was as difficult as all that?

He'd just flown the route three weeks earlier, so assuming he did that ok, it wasn't unreasonable for his instructor to send him that way again.

Even without a GPS, assuming he had a VOR in the aircraft, he should have noticed that DTY was right where you'd want it if you need a bit of help with the route. I always stuck the VOR on back in the day - indeed I was expected to use the navaids available as backup.

This is a classic example of a big cock-up, for a variety of very understandable reasons, from which he'll hopefully learn a lot, and I very much hope the 'just culture' really is just, and that he won't suffer any ill effects from the mistake.

It was his fault, he should learn from it, and he probably will, unless some eejit let's him off the hook and encourages him to play the 'let's see who else we can blame' game that seems so prevalent these days.

__
Edited to correct reference to Stanford Reservoir ironically misidentified as Blithfield by failing to read the report properly.
Last edited by TopCat on Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1837319
The only reference to dead reckoning is one line entry in Part FCL is Section 3 En Route Procedures, once this has been demonstrated to a pass standard it can be marked as pass. There is no Part FCL restriction on GNSS usage at any stage of the PPL or LAPL test in Part FCL or requirements for other specific legs etc in relation to GNSS usage. Standards Documents and the FEH are guidance documents only and years out of date (9 years in the case of Doc 19).
#1837339
I have to sympathise with the student in this instance as he had a number of things working against him. The worst error in my opinion was the instructor's (or school's) selection of the route.

Increasing the likelihood of a timing error is a bad idea on a route where a timing error (turning too early in this case) could easily cause an infringement - so why make the 48nm leg between Blithfield Reservoir and Pitsford Water a single leg? The Nuneaton VRP lies at the approximate half way point and if it had been used as a waypoint, would probably have acted as a trigger for the student to reset his stopwatch. I understand the need for longer legs on sparse routes but it seems inappropriate here, given the available ground features.
aligee liked this
#1837351
I’m on the fence on this one.

Why is it that new pilots cannot be expected to learn how to navigate using non GPS techniques. A lot of us here managed to quite successfully and indeed find their way around the country. We still had airspace, certainly that in the south east hasn’t got too much worse since I learned to fly.
Somehow I managed to land at places like Bournemouth, Southend, Rochester, Blackbushe, Goodwood, Lydd and Manston during my PPL training, having never seen a GPS unit.

However I do strongly believe that the use of GPS should also be included in the syllabus and also tested. Pilots will use it, so let’s have them using it properly.
Rob P, Rich V, Lockhaven and 3 others liked this
#1837356
I also find the report from ATC (conveniently) short. No mention of what was the workload, could have been very light or normal or even high with one ATCO covering several frequencies in those covid time.s No radar picture. How straight was the student course before the infringement? Was it clear the infringement was just a matter of time or more subtle? If the former it is bad PR for listening squawk.
Rob P, Dominie, TopCat liked this