The real weakness is in the training system but until someone defines what should be taught and on what generic platform we will be left with an ad-hoc approach.
I don’t think a generic platform is needed (this usually results in the lowest common denominator). Most GPS equipment isn’t all that hard to use if the user takes the time to learn it. I think a better approach would be a standardised set of things you must learn: have the student demonstrate (perhaps teach) how they do these things with their chosen GPS to an examiner or instructor. If the student can competently demonstrate and explain how to use the GPS to someone else, they are probably sufficiently familiar with its features.
If we were to discuss how to introduce GPS into the syllabus, it’s worth a look at how the FAA did it. They take care of it on the checkride, by requiring a demonstration of competence on all equipment installed in the cockpit. So, as schools get newer planes, they have to teach the equipment otherwise their customers will fail their checkrides 
Sure there are schools who keep the old planes going (like the one I did my IR in) but their numbers are falling, as customers increasingly expect more modern planes.
In Europe, that expectation is probably lower so it will take much longer. The IR examiner could ask you to use the GPS if it is installed but FTOs which have GPS installed have found a way to sabotage the requirement, by having the database at least 1 cycle out of date, which totally prevents the GPS being used for anything.
I can’t see any other way to do it, because there is no standard equipment. And the schools are very much against teaching GPS as a mandatory thing.
as customers increasingly expect more modern planes.
I don’t think so. A new guy in aviation can’t tell the age of a well kept clean C150 and can’t tell the difference between a first Generation Katana and a A210. Attitude towards the new pilot, a friendly welcome and “customer care” are much more important than a post-2000 aircraft.
While that is obviously true for a good % of new punters, I would not think it is sufficiently true for somebody running a school who wants a competitive edge.
I only got myself a Nexus 7 pad and Easy VFR a year ago. The aircraft I have been flying have mostly had these ancient Garmins clamp-on with a map, but I have only used them as a mini moving map to get a quick overview. Once I had to use the GPS as the sole IAS (ground speed) when the static got blocked and the IAS went bananas, but that is the only time I have had any real use for it. It never even crossed my mind that I have been doing DR, which is wasn’t. It was pilotage with some DR techniques to get the basic heading and basic time accounting using a paper VFR plan. The Cub I am flying has no GPS, and there really is not enough space in there for a 7 inch pad either, so I use it with my phone (Nexus 5 of course 
) which also has EasyVFR, but a year ago I used nothing.
Our new glider tow plane at the gliding club is all glass. Double Dynon with a separate integrated moving map, it even has integrated autopilot. It’s all fairly intuitive and easy to use (although completely redundant for a glider towing aircraft ). At my local club, one of the C-172 has Garmin 1000 certified glass. I have taken a “Garmin 1000 course” and decided to never use that aircraft, because the Garmin interface is simply not made for humans in my opinion. It reminds me of MS Office, a million things you don’t ever need completely clutters the handful of functionality you do need. I would have no problem learning it with some practice, but I am too fed up with useless UI’s to “learn” one single more of them.
On the other hand, I think these VFR navigation apps are great. Planning is easy, can be done at home on the PC for instance, using them in flight is easy, and they are online giving current weather, NOTAMs and detailed information about anything (airports, telephone numbers etc). This makes them extremely useful tools. They are what these clamp-on garmins should have been, but never was. They also have a dimension of usability that glass does not have. But, they are not really an instrument in the proper sense, they are more like a high tech online map with “unlimited” functionality. I still think that pilotage with DR is the fundamental knowledge for any VFR flight, GPS or no GPS. This has to do with situational awareness. I think in any VFR flight you have to know at any given time where you are. There is no need to know precisely where you are, or in detail, but you should have a mental picture of your surroundings that fits with the ground below. A GPS is no replacement for that mental picture, it only makes it easier and more accurate.
Have to add. DR is a technique that enables VFR flying with NO visual references to the ground. It is perfectly legal to fly on top or over oceans. It is also perfectly legal to use radio navigation, and of course a GPS in these circumstances. But no matter how you look at it, DR is the fundamental technique at the bottom. If you take away DR, then the only alternative is IFR in these situations. I would say learning IFR is a much more complex endeavor than learning DR, which is a simple and basic technique.
Too true LeSving. And the NVFR checkout should include celestial navigation as a matter of course.
Have to add. DR is a technique that enables VFR flying with NO visual references to the ground.
The way DR is taught during the PPL is that you fly from one landmark to the next, with about 10 min. interval between waypoints. You visually identify the planned landmarks on your route. When you fly over it, you note the Actual Time Over in your nav plan, and set course to the next landmark.
If you don’t see your next waypoint, you need to fly back to the previous one. Otherwise you will get lost. Identifying the waypoint is done visually, so you need to have the ground in sight at least when near the planned landmarks.
I think it’s fine that DR is the nav technique trained and examined for PPL. It’s basic, but it gives a good insight in navigation concepts.
The problem is that most PPL’s haven’t learned to intercept a VOR radial, and are told that GPS may not be used for primary navigation. Yet they are flying in modern aircraft with redundant IFR certified GPS’es on board ?!
Peter, it is already a requirement under EASA for a candidate under examination to be able to demonstrate how to operate all on-board equipment. If we mandate the use of GPS as part of the syllabus, this is basically mandating GPS as part of the equipment list. That may seem like a good idea but many will cry foul.
“Have to add. DR is a technique that enables VFR flying with NO visual references to the ground. It is perfectly legal to fly on top or over oceans. It is also perfectly legal to use radio navigation, and of course a GPS in these circumstances. But no matter how you look at it, DR is the fundamental technique at the bottom. If you take away DR, then the only alternative is IFR in these situations.”
In 2012 I flew TVSV – TNCC and TNCC-MDJB direct in a PA28. How do you suggest DR would have been a usable alternative? No ground reference for 400 NM.
It intrigues me that even on this forum (where a significant proportion of forumites do serious touring), the topic of dead reckoning has already generated six pages of chat. I guess I’m adding to that so am part of the “problem” :)
When I started school, I was taught how to add numbers together using my fingers. Then I progressed to using a number line. After that I started doing it in my head. Later, I was allowed to use an electronic calculator. I now use Microsoft Excel, a calculator or an electronic cash register – whatever is most appropriate to the situation. On the odd occasion when I don’t have a calculator to hand and the sums are quick and easy (like working out what change I expect from a shop assistant), I’ll still do it in my head. But I’d wouldn’t routinely do it in my head just to keep me “current” in case my calculator broke down. A similar principle applies to cadence breaking and ABS. I’m sure you can think of other examples.
My approach to flying: I can do dead reckoning but I’m not good at it, I find it hard and I don’t enjoy it. I use GPS almost exclusively. If that GPS fails, I’ll use the second one mounted on the panel. If both of those fail, I’ll use the third one in my flight back. If they all fail, that’ll most likely be due to some GPS jamming exercise that wasn’t NOTAM’d. In the event of that happening, I’ll take a view of what to do based on where I am. If I’m in the middle of Wales with no significant airspace nearby, I’ll use a combination of dead reckoning and feature crawling. If I’m in the south east of England where the airspace is cluttered, I’ll get in touch with a RADAR unit, explain that I have equipment failure and ask them to provide me with vectors to a suitable place to land.
Those of you that do dead reckoning regularly, I take my hat off to you. It’s an incredible skill. I find it impressive. But I’d prefer to devote my time to enjoying my flying rather than working hard to get better at traditional navigation.
