Dependance on GPS and other "glass" accessories

[Crusty Old Dude]

First, I'll let this article that I read TODAY open for me:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205789832...=hpp_us_pageone

 

And now some thoughts.

 

I'm not a pilot...not yet anyway. So I'll dis-qualify myself to speak about anything having to do with navigating as a pilot.

 

But I DO load the microcode and data into the cockpit of the most advanced fighter in the U.S. at current time, and I see how that data gets loaded and what can go wrong with that data. The human factor is huge...and let's leave that as it is.

 

I was also Air Force aircrew for several years on both C-130 and on the Pave Hawk, and when I went to survival school we didn't have or use GPS. In fact, I didn't even learn land nav from the Air Force, I learned it in the Army prior to leaving active duty and I learned it in Kentucky in the late spring. This was back in the days when there was a magnetic compass and pace count, with a UDT map and a fine tipped pen or sharp pencil. You had to read and adjust the compass for magnetic variance (fortunately at Campbell, that is near zero...not so at Schofield) and you had to understand that going straight usually meant running into a few trees and maybe even a lake.

 

Again, I'm no pilot, but I definitely understand the fine skills involved with recognizing terrain features, recognizing that maps are often very wrong with regards to some of those features, and how to work around that. I took my Army map reading and compass skills with me to the Air National Guard where I unwittingly became a student in combat search and rescue from January until February of 1997. Needless to say, I was on point almost always.

 

Understand that I am a computer systems administrator and not some old fart who uses a slide rule and complains about "kids these days". But I am seeing a HUGE amount of new guy posts with students who have less than 10 hours total flight time using GPS extensively. I know it's part of the curriculum...and in fact, an Army aviator I spoke to recently told me his SAR course used GPS almost exclusively.

 

But folks, I have seen what the glass cockpit consists of...and I work on one of the best. I often am tasked to load the microcode updates and data that goes into them, and there are still people involved in that loop. I think you know what I'm getting at here. Basic map, compass, air/land speed is all that will be left should any one of these devices fail. GPS is only as good as what is being read and it is my opinion that over-dependence on any one tool without a backup can't be a good thing.

 

I most definitely welcome someone who is qualified to comment! Understand that this comes from spending the afternoon reading about a new guy's first 10-25 hours of flight instruction and some consistent references to GPS. It worries me...I'm an older guy...that's what we do.

[Chopperjess]

When I was trained for my PPL, I wasn't even introduced to the GPS until much later in my training. I'm glad my school had done this, because when we did have the GPS in the aircraft, I found myself rarely looking at it or using it. Instead, I was doing normally what I trained to do. On my first solo cross country, I had the GPS in the aircraft, and had it on. One of the buttons got stuck halfway during the flight, and I could not use it reliably, because I needed to focus on the world outside, and not the stupid GPS. It's a nice tool, don't get me wrong, but I personally believe I am a better pilot because I don't depend on it. When I took my PPL checkride, my examiner said he didn't much like using GPS, because anyone could follow an arrow. He asked me one question about the GPS and then that was it. It was never turned on.

 

I agree a lot of people are using GPS in their training, low time training, and it makes me a tad nervous as well!

[rick1128]

I realize I am dating myself, but I learned to fly before GPS existed and managed to find my way around without it. Used the old doppler and INS navigation systems, but the errors could be quite interesting. It has been my personal practice to compare the GPS course with the chart or my personal internal compass for reasonability. If the math doesn't seem correct, I alway check again. Every once in awhile they will go off on a wild tangent. For helicopter flying, I have always found my 1964 Esso road map to work quite well.

[BOATFIXERGUY]

I also learned back in the day...The GPS does make flying much safer and easier to navigate, but all pilots never rely on one type of navigation. On long ferry flights, we still use "pilotage" and IFR (I follow roads) and cross check our path with a chart. Most helicopters are not equipped like FW, so your navigational aids are limited.

 

On the topic of dependability, GPS in our civilian aircraft is very dependable and for what a helicopter is used for, reliable. Never had a problem with it. The Garmin brand has really done their homework, and make a great product for us helo drivers. Even if you have a 430 go down on you, Garmin will usually give you a replacement to use while yours is being fixed.

[Crusty Old Dude]

I also learned back in the day...The GPS does make flying much safer and easier to navigate, but all pilots never rely on one type of navigation. On long ferry flights, we still use "pilotage" and IFR (I follow roads) and cross check our path with a chart. Most helicopters are not equipped like FW, so your navigational aids are limited.

 

On the topic of dependability, GPS in our civilian aircraft is very dependable and for what a helicopter is used for, reliable. Never had a problem with it. The Garmin brand has really done their homework, and make a great product for us helo drivers. Even if you have a 430 go down on you, Garmin will usually give you a replacement to use while yours is being fixed.

I figured that some of the better models, and especially the aviation ones, were better off. I can definitely see the advantage when flying over snow or water (I can't see how some of you did it in the Gulf before GPS!). I guess I kept reading posts that referred to the units used on first solo flights and so forth. The same concern I have with that matches my concern with ground troops who don't know how to use a compass and a LOB (line of bearing).

 

I guess "Crusty Old Dude" might be a good fit.

 

[Gomer Pylot]

I learned to navigate by pilotage, using a map and compass, and I spent years navigating across the GOM with just a wet compass. However, time marches on, and technology with it. How did people navigate before there were maps or compasses? We don't want, or need, to go back to that technology. GPS isn't going to go away, indeed the technology will get better. Why use a pencil and paper to do complicated math when a calculator or computer is available? Why use a map and compass when a GPS is available? Certainly there is the possibility of error, but there is just as much possibility for error when using a map and compass. I've seen very gross errors on lots of maps, and there are dozens of ways to induce large compass errors. Being able to navigate by the sun and tree moss is nice, but it's a skill that is seldom required. We need to prepare for the most likely scenarios, and IMO it's more important to be able to quickly and accurately get a GPS route than it is to be able to navigate by stellar navigation, because GPS is what is used 99.99999% of the time. Pilotage skills should be taught, certainly, but not exclusively.

[helonorth]

I don't think there is a unheathy dependance on GPS. It's just one tool and a very reliable one.

If it quits working, nothing terrible is going to happen. Flying around in unfamiliar areas and

not having a chart could be a problem. Embarassing if you get lost, but not dangerous.

[CROOK]

When I was a CFI, I didn't even let my students use electronic flight calculators. E6B and a ruler!

[Crusty Old Dude]

I learned to navigate by pilotage, using a map and compass, and I spent years navigating across the GOM with just a wet compass. However, time marches on, and technology with it. How did people navigate before there were maps or compasses? We don't want, or need, to go back to that technology. GPS isn't going to go away, indeed the technology will get better. Why use a pencil and paper to do complicated math when a calculator or computer is available? Why use a map and compass when a GPS is available? Certainly there is the possibility of error, but there is just as much possibility for error when using a map and compass. I've seen very gross errors on lots of maps, and there are dozens of ways to induce large compass errors. Being able to navigate by the sun and tree moss is nice, but it's a skill that is seldom required. We need to prepare for the most likely scenarios, and IMO it's more important to be able to quickly and accurately get a GPS route than it is to be able to navigate by stellar navigation, because GPS is what is used 99.99999% of the time. Pilotage skills should be taught, certainly, but not exclusively.

I hear ya, and that was one example of what I was looking for. But do you think some folks without your background could get into trouble if they lose the unit? Or if "the button sticks" or some other malfunction? Especially feet wet? Or is the plan to do a 180 and head back?

 

And back in your wet compass days, how far off would you normally be when following a LOB and going by X airspeed for Y hours? Again, non-pilot here but I've done the x-country on land thing where I felt my LOB was pretty good and my pace count was ok but then I'd end up 10-100 feet away from my objective. I knew I was close but it was hard to get dead-on over uneven terrain.

 

Thanks for weighing in on this one...

Edited March 18, 2008 by Crusty Old Dude

[Parafiddle]

I agree with Gomer Pylot - GPS is the way of the future and a very useful tool. You should always use every tool available to you. I'm a fixed-wing instrument pilot (not RW - yet!), and prefer to fly with a GPS in the A/C. However, on long cross-country flights over terrain with minimal features (eastern Colorado/western Kansas or Nebraska, for example), I use both the GPS as well as VORs and pilotage to continually check, cross-check and verify what the instruments are telling me. GPS systems can also be inoperable due to poor signal reception from the satellite as well as a variety of other satellite-related issues. For the record, I am also better than average at ground-based land navigation (16+ yrs. in the Army including Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia & Iraq). I've also worked as a Cartographer (map maker) and know quite a bit about satellite orbitology and GPS. Any link in the navigation chain can fail due to human error, mechanical error, weather, etc. Our job as pilots is to ensure we can identify the problem, come up with a viable alternative and continue safely to our destination. New students should learn multiple ways to navigate - from pilotage and dead reckoning to the most advanced navigational systems (including GPS), that they are reasonably likely to encounter. Isn't it better to expose them to GPS with an instructor versus being alone as a new private pilot having a working GPS in an A/C and not utilizing the enhanced navigational accuracy it offers and getting lost while trying to do dead reckoning, resulting in a fuel management crisis? The "Direct To" capability of GPS can be a life-saver. My two cents....

[Crusty Old Dude]

I agree with Gomer Pylot - GPS is the way of the future and a very useful tool. You should always use every tool available to you. I'm a fixed-wing instrument pilot (not RW - yet!), and prefer to fly with a GPS in the A/C. However, on long cross-country flights over terrain with minimal features (eastern Colorado/western Kansas or Nebraska, for example), I use both the GPS as well as VORs and pilotage to continually check, cross-check and verify what the instruments are telling me. GPS systems can also be inoperable due to poor signal reception from the satellite as well as a variety of other satellite-related issues. For the record, I am also better than average at ground-based land navigation (16+ yrs. in the Army including Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia & Iraq). I've also worked as a Cartographer (map maker) and know quite a bit about satellite orbitology and GPS. Any link in the navigation chain can fail due to human error, mechanical error, weather, etc. Our job as pilots is to ensure we can identify the problem, come up with a viable alternative and continue safely to our destination. New students should learn multiple ways to navigate - from pilotage and dead reckoning to the most advanced navigational systems (including GPS), that they are reasonably likely to encounter. Isn't it better to expose them to GPS with an instructor versus being alone as a new private pilot having a working GPS in an A/C and not utilizing the enhanced navigational accuracy it offers and getting lost while trying to do dead reckoning, resulting in a fuel management crisis? The "Direct To" capability of GPS can be a life-saver. My two cents....

Which do you think the student should learn first, or do you feel that nav aids should be taught simultaneously (i.e. learn flight computer/traditional and then get into GPS or just get the whole bit from the beginning)?

[Tom22]

GPS is a huge situational awareness tool especially when navigating around complex airspace or over featureless train. When I was studying Logistics and Human Factors at ERAU I drew the conclusion that pilotage and dead reckoning is a crude form of navigation that is not efficient from an operator standpoint. There are times when pilots stray off course even for an instant but those small course changes over time have a negative impact the bottom line. Pilots have to embrace new technologies in navigation and autopilot systems because they improve efficiency and safety. For training purposes, students still have to demonstrate pilotage and dead reckoning on a flight check in addition to their ability to use airborne electronic navigation. Furthermore, I do not think there is an excessive dependence on the use of GPS.

[500E]

the 300 I trained in did not have GPS fitted so it was map & whirly wheel.

The first thing we were taught was Check for gross error within the first few minutes then keep checking, used to do 5deg off track lines this with the 1 in 60 and time usually got me there.

Now I use map to keep track of the GPS, just in case!!!

[Gomer Pylot]

I don't often use a map, mostly because I know the area I'm flying in well enough that I don't need it. But the charts are always in the aircraft, because they're required to be there by FAR, and they do come in handy now and then. Any pilot should be able to use all the tools available, including the charts, compass, VOR, and whatever else is there. It should all be taught, as quickly as the student can absorb it. I don't argue against teaching everything, I just think learning the GPS is more important than learning the VOR, ADF, or much of anything else. Reading the charts should be taught in ground school, and flying with them should be just a refresher and a chance to correlate the features on the ground with those on the map. That does take some practice, but not that much. I can tell you from personal experience that not knowing how to use the GPS very efficiently can get you in trouble very quickly, either on a checkride or when everything goes in the tank on a flight. Knowing how to use it, and use it quickly and efficiently, is essential, because it is by far the most useful navigation device available. It's more accurate than an ILS laterally, and doesn't require ground facilities to be operational. It won't be that long until the ground radio stations - ILS, VOR, and NDB, will go away entirely. The GPS has the charts with navaids and airspace displayed, and much more, and that's the way of the future.

[Wally]

I remember sitting in a PHI Gulf break room one weather day with 8 other senior "little ship" pilots and discovering that none of them knew the lat-long of the base they worked from. Nobody, none, ZERO! They plugged some numbers into the LORAN, or used the same old waypoint they'd used the week before, and followed the needle. I'm confident of their situational awareness while navigating, but they were functionally illiterate as far as lat-longs were concerned. If you're relying on a black box to do something for you, how do you evaluate the result offered if you don't understand the terms, the question's potential outcome? Are you GPS illiterate? Whats your base lat-long? How many miles- nautical or statute- in a degree of latitude or longitude where you are? Of course you know the numbers get bigger North and West, right? Can you estimate a bearing from coordinates? You're lost if you're using a GPS without this ability. It's only a question of how lost you are.

If you're operating in a familiar AO and you have a pretty good idea of where stuff is, then an outlandish solution would probably be resolved before it was an issue. Had I asked a range and bearing to EC 222, or the nearest fuel to that platform, my fellow pilots would have supplied useful answers. They handled that data often enough that it related to the real world, usefully. In other words, if you need the black box to make the flight, you'd better check a map before you accept the guidance.

 

I'm also struck by how illusion of accuracy to the n-th digit shapes our operations. How old is the satellite data your GPS uses? How quickly is it resolved and displayed? What's the probable error? If you're VFR, these things shouldn't- and don't- matter much- you don't fly the needles to touchdown. Having the coordinates to the third decimal is nice, but not worth writing down (with one exception- which of the pads are you landing on?).

In the real world, I'm off the theoretical center line of the course almost all the time: I'm selecting track for terrain; I'm avoiding weather; I'm dodging traffic; I don't see the advantage of constant heading changes for varying winds to maintain a couple of hundred feet from the GPS solution. If you can't do that math...

 

Going to "X" from "Y" is no different than walking across your living room- that way, that far, look around, sit down.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Wally

[Gomer Pylot]

I don't know the exact lat/lon of the base I'm working at now, even though it's in the GPS. I have too many numbers to remember already. But I can look at the numbers for a waypoint, look at my present position, and estimate very closely how far and in what direction the waypoint is from me. I learned to use numbers for a sanity check before GPS was operational, using LORAN, and I still do it every time. It's not that unusual for dispatch to give me bogus coordinates, so I do a quick check before going too far toward them. I agree completely that being able to do this, and doing it all the time, is an essential skill, and is part of being able to use the GPS efficiently. Just plugging in numbers and flying to them doesn't come close to it. You need to know how your unit works, how to put numbers in, and how to get the correct result out. It doesn't happen overnight, and it takes practice and concentration. The more technology you use, the more work you have to do. But you get more out it. The accuracy of GPS isn't essential for VFR flying, but when you're flying an instrument approach to a platform in the middle of the ocean, in the middle of the night, with weather down to 300/1, or less, then you want all the accuracy you can get. Same for an approach to an airport, or to a point in space among towers and other helicopter catchers. I may not need all the accuracy all the time, but I always want it available. You never know when things will go to hell in a handbasket.

[Witch]

I remember sitting in a PHI Gulf break room one weather day with 8 other senior "little ship" pilots and discovering that none of them knew the lat-long of the base they worked from. Nobody, none, ZERO! They plugged some numbers into the LORAN, or used the same old waypoint they'd used the week before, and followed the needle. I'm confident of their situational awareness while navigating, but they were functionally illiterate as far as lat-longs were concerned.

 

Wow, that reminds me of a co-driver I was with while driving truck. He couldn't read a road map. He just got directions from his dispatcher and folowed them. He then got directions from the shipper/receiver and followed those.

 

I later found that many truck drivers can't read road maps. They either do what my co-driver did or had established routes to follow.

 

Oh well.

 

I've tried using a GPS, but I end up ignoring it until I take it off of the windscreen. Maybe a different stratigery?

 

Later.