ian00798

Correct, it’s only the IFR TSO gps that are approved. Basically to be used for navigation of this type it has to have some kind of RAIM system in the software. There are several TSO that meet the standard, but the common ones are TSO 129 or 145/146.

Unlikely as your probably not current for azimuth, you would only be signed off on CDI approaches at the moment I suspect. Similar to how you have to demonstrate a circling approach within the last 12 months to be able to do one in anger. If you had an aircraft that lets you do VOR azimuth approaches then possibly you could.

Krviator, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on some aspects of this issue as I believe the requirements are different to how you interpret them, but surely you can agree that some type of training would have to be done prior to actually being competent to use these navaids for primary navigation in anger?

Following the magenta line is more referring to people becoming over reliant on technology and automation to the point where they lose situational awareness. ADF and VOR both require a significant amount of situational awareness to use, in fact I find it takes nearly as long to teach students how to use them as it does to teach DR. Too many people have excessive faith in GPS despite the fact that it is subject to error as well, and the idea of removing DR Nav from the training syllabus as some want done would be a massive step backwards.

Don’t you know old school techniques like that are irrelevant in the age of GPS?

I’m sorry and I’m going to very very agitated on this one, but are you seriously implying you know the ATC system better than an experienced controller who has done several years of training in this system and knows very well what the system provides? Tell me, when did you become the world expert on what information ATC provides? Have you ever even actually seen how this information is presented at an ATC console? I know it’s not a book you ever read, but perhaps we should look at AIP GEN 2.13.2 which specifically states exactly what Nathan has told you (photo attached to this post). Pull your head in and stop making up your own stuff. I don’t really care what you do on your own when you fly, but there are some people on here who may think you know what your talking about who your going to kill when they listen to you.

Valid points. And for the record it’s not the use of electronics I object to, it’s the over reliance I have the problem with and the lack of understanding people seem to have of how GNSS systems work. Putting all your eggs in the GPS basket when your not even running an approved GPS is just reckless.

An iPad GPS has no accurate way to determine the accuracy of the GPS signal as it has no fault detection/exclusion like a TSO gps does. The GPS on the iPad is not approved by casa to be used as a primary source of navigation, and on several occasions I have seen the GPS display a massively inaccurate position. Even the airliners don’t rely on GPS solely for navigation, their systems constantly update/crosscheck the navigation solution against ground based navaids and most of them also have an IRS so if GPS stops working they still have a system that works. If we don’t train people how to use basic DR as some people on here suggest doing, how can a pilot conduct a gross error check on what the electronics are telling them? Where do they get the basic map reading skills from? Where do they get the basic understanding of things like track, heading and all the basics? Teaching someone to follow a purple line on a GPS doesn’t train pilots with situational awareness. And frankly, basic DR navigation isn’t that hard, what is everyone’s problem with learning another skill that will serve them well as a pilot?

Well frankly I would have thought you would be competent enough to look up the regulations yourself, but since your too lazy I will do the job for you. AIP ENR 4.1.2.1 (f) states that you must meet the general competency rule listed under CASR 61.385. As far as RA Aus aircraft go that seals the matter, you don’t hold a part 61 licence and as such can’t comply with that CASR, and the RA ops manual doesn’t give any kind of approval to use navaids for position fixing. Now as far as GA goes, 61.385 states that you can only use the navaids if you have been deemed competent to operate them by someone who is qualified to assess your competency, ie a flight instructor. There would be very few instructors willing to sign off that unless you hold either an NVFR rating or an instrument rating, as you are required to demonstrate you meet all the competencies in the MOS.

I’m really hoping he’s pulling our leg, otherwise I’m seriously worried for Rec flying in general

Electronic flight bags are legal as a source of maps. The GPS in the system is not legal to use for navigation purposes. As such, even with the EFB you should still be using the DR techniques and not relying on the GPS.

Are any of them a TSO gps (ie gns430, that kind of thing)? If not you can’t use them as a primary source of navigation and as such must still use DR. Additionally if you don’t hold an NVFR/instrument rating you can’t use any of the nav aids for position fixing. Whether you like it or not, the rules are extremely clear on this one.

Frankly the GPS system onboard an iPad isn’t that reliable, I have had it give me some badly incorrect position info before. Remember, if it’s not a TSO unit there is no guarantee of the accuracy of the position information, not to mention it is actually illegal to use for anything other than situational awareness. That’s why we teach people basic navigation.

I have to disagree on this, the reason we teach basic DR nav is because it forces the student to understand the basic concepts behind navigation, not just following the purple line. GNSS is fantastic, however it is not flawless and it would be a very bad idea to rely solely on that for navigation. And for the record, yes we do still teach radio beacons because they are a fantastic tool for navigation.

I definitely support the idea of not using ozrunways until after getting your CPL, although I have to be honest I don’t think it will save any money with the cost of charts, ERSA etc these days

Maybe your missing the point.... it was literally only a few hours ago two really decent people died, maybe the speculation doesn’t need to start right now especially while there is zero factual information around and people are trying to live with the knowledge that friends are now gone.

I’m glad it’s so easy for (edited..Please watch language, abuse etc in posts... mod) to say get over it, but for the record there are two families that are now going to be spending a lifetime trying to “get over it”. But hey, as long as you guys can have fun pretending you know everything it’s all good right?

Your freaking kidding right? Waiting for actual facts to come out after they have been actually been investigated by professionals is not nearly as effective? Maybe we should just hand the investigation over to you Chris, you can have the answers in an hour without even actually gathering a real piece of factual information. We will gain so much insight from this that will be way more valuable than waiting for a professional to do it properly.

What, with precisely zero facts apart from the fact that two fellow pilots are dead? Sounds like a fantastic time to speculate.

No, it’s not that useful. Frankly it’s speculation when there are very few facts. Maybe wait and let the ATSB do their job and learn the actual lessons from what happened instead of all the BS that some clowns come up with on here?

Perhaps flytornado should apply for the job then and make a difference rather than just whine about casa.....

Should try giving it a read. Works fine when you do that.

Wow mark you draw some interesting conclusions. You can read into it that it’s all to hard, or you could read into it that CASA feel there is already a licence that covers CTA and a higher MTOW and probably don’t see a reasonable reason to change anything at the moment. As for your part 61 is it printed on cardboard or something? Mine is about 2 inches thick and quite easy to understand, don’t know how yours ended up 2ft thick.

Yep as per what kaz said, unless you hold an NVFR or IR you can't even use the ground based navaids as your primary Nav source, or even an IFR gps. All that leaves you with is visual Nav and all the assosciated rules, ie 30 min position fixes etc. Of course if you do a Nav endorsement you know those regulations unlike the idiot using a technicality to just jump 25 nm at a time.