ian00798

If you use radio navigation aids the 30 minutes can be extended to 2 hours and the fix can be determined by radio aids as I referenced previously. However, the navigation and position fixing procedures are quite specific. In particular, when using GPS it must be an "approved area navigation system", which is not an Ipad or even (as I understand it) aviation specific portable GPS.

Na, we did an AZI in the sim just wasn’t an NDB.[/quoteThen I believe you can use NDB

I have not renewed my NDB in my last 2 or 3 IFR renewal, and cant get a straight answer as to whether or not I’m allowed to use them as I conducted a 2D and 3D approach in the aircraft.

That's the second time I've seen that comment recently, and be damned if I can find a reference for it. What endorsement are you referring to? As best I can tell, I can install a VOR in my RAAus RV, and so long as I can demonstrate competence with it, can legally use it for position fixing and enroute navigation in flight.

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.

I wonder if you have heard of or practised "attitude & power"?Might surprise you just how accurate it can be.

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.

And in turbulence, in a high workload situation, try tapping the screen to change the map orientation or select a GOTO.Chances are you will accidentally tap the wrong thing, and while staring at the screen trying to rectify it, the airplane will wander off altitude and or heading and make a stressful situation worse.

I use Avplan and find it a great BACKUP but where i fly, you MUST look out the window for obvious reasons.

 

Too much reliance on electronics for the average recreational pilot will end badly eventually.

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.

My cockpit is paperless. There is zero reason to learn hard maps. Doing my flight plan I get out my Azimuth Plotter and my abacus and map and NOT.There is no point teaching hard maps when the students will not be using them the when they finish. They are in the course and someone makes money teaching outdated stuff, my guess. Do they still teach how to use radio beacons? Paperless is here now just need to be able to put the maintenance release and flight manual into an app and we can do away with that to happy days.

And for the record, yes we do still teach radio beacons because they are a fantastic tool for navigation.

When you say for further training you mean onward to CPL? If so save yourself some money and buy yourself a pencil and a few charts.

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.

But is this not EXACTLY the right time to have a speculate on all possible causes? With respectful discussion this creates an ideal learning opportunity that will hopefully save a life in future

The facts won't come out for a year or more. If it was an RAAus aircraft the facts may never come out. Discussion about an incident, even without the full facts can be useful. If you don't want to read about any speculation it would be best not to log on to the accident forum.

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

You should work for CASA because they themselves have had all sorts of trouble understanding Pt 61.

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.