I once discussed this (GPS in PPL training) with the then head of UK CAA licensing. He said this is hard because there are multiple satnav vendors and the CAA cannot be seen to be favouring any one of them (I agree with this).
How would the particular GPS application affect e.g. a PPL examiner’s assessment of performance relative to practical test standards, as long as the student shows competence with the tool in use? This objection strikes me as bizarre, inventing problems where there are none.
hazek wrote:
Airborne_Again wrote:For VFR navigation something like SkyDemon running on a tablet is much better than a GTN650 or even a GTN750.Until it overheats, yeah sure.
Well… Some people have had problems with some kinds of tablets while other people (including me) have never had any problems with the same tablets. So you can’t just expect any table to overheat.
Many (most) modern radios have a monitoring facility so that you can listen to the ATIS while still staying on the ATC frequency.Yes, but that only works when there is no transmitting. Ever heard the Langen FIS freq on a sunny Sat?
How does having two radios help with that? Unless you are two pilots and your audio panel allows you to split the radios between you.
For maximum endurance flights, yes. For the typical training or sightseeing sortie, you can do very well with making a sensible power setting and having good margins of fuel in the tanks.Fuel flow is for lean of peak leaning to monitor power settings.
The primary instrument for leaning to peak is the EGT and not the fuel flow indicator. Actually you can do it even without an EGT although that is slightly more difficult. You can also quite well set power using rpm only (and MP, if you have a c/s prop). I add an additional 10% reserve on aircraft without FF (on top of my usual 10% contingency fuel) and that has so far always been enough for the uncertainty in power setting.
How would the particular GPS application affect e.g. a PPL examiner’s assessment of performance relative to practical test standards, as long as the student shows competence with the tool in use? This objection strikes me as bizarre, inventing problems where there are none.
Indeed. The FAA gets around this problem by the DPE being authorised to require a demonstration of competence on all equipment installed (obviously as applicable so e.g. not setting up a GPS for an RNP on a PPL checkride). This incidentally also stops the schools from criticising the FAA for jacking up their costs; the schools upgrade their aircraft anyway for marketing reasons. I put this to the CAA HoL also and he said he will look into it. Of course nothing happened 
It could have been implemented as a competence demo on panel mounted kit, thus avoiding the apparent favouring of a specific tablet app.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Many (most) modern radios have a monitoring facility so that you can listen to the ATIS while still staying on the ATC frequency. Yes, but that only works when there is no transmitting. Ever heard the Langen FIS freq on a sunny Sat?How does having two radios help with that? Unless you are two pilots and your audio panel allows you to split the radios between you.
Airborne_Again, I’ve discovered that in Monitoring mode the primary frequency interrupts the ATIS, while with two radios you have better chances in actually getting it.
Yes, I know, it is only needed when you are listenning on a busy frequency, so in the UK it is likely to be the likes of London Control on your IR/CBIR training, hence my caveat that it is probably not needed for non-IR a/c.
arj1 wrote:
I’ve discovered that in Monitoring mode the primary frequency interrupts the ATIS, while with two radios you have better chances in actually getting it.
I know. (Which is what you want.) But I find it just as difficult to listen to the ATIS on one radio while there is a lot of chatter on the other one.
When budgeting for equipment in an aircraft I tend to take the price of the equipment added (optional equipment) and divide it by 100. That is how much I would have to add to the hourly training cost of that piece of equipment.
Eg 2×Bose ANR.(I don’t like ANR and many friends who work in helicopters, especially SAR don’t either) €3000 ÷100 = €30.
So instead of being able to charge.a PPL student €120 per hour, you are now charging €150. If you then have to use airports with €15 fees for each touch and go add another let’s say €60 to the training cost so we now have €210 per hour. Even with a benevolent (Sorry French term) instructor you can add another €20 ph. Total so far for your average PPL training aircraft €230 per hour. And we wonder why young people can’t be bothered with it all.
And you will not I have left out many of the options wanted here.
Peter is right Bose headsets get broken, not necessarily out of carelessness, but stuff happens, especially in the training environment where the student is getting brain overload.
Why does anyone expect a school to provide headsets? I can understand that for a discovery flight, but thereafter it’s your personal responsibility and equipment.
Boses breaking: I call total BS on that. I’ve had my X since 2017 and had one factory repair early on (warranty, some mic issue) and replaced the stirrups myself once (around $10) a couple of years ago.
- Provided it is for VFR/primary instruction -
Any ADSB out/in + FLARM + ModeS Traffic or Safesky
*CO detector
*Noise cancelling headphones (instructor), Noise cancelling headphones (student)
*GPS navigation (either iPad or built in vfr gps map)
*USB Charger socket
Why would anything else other the above be required let alone make any sense? Unless the question and equipment wasn’t meant for basic primary VFR instruction?
Did I miss anything?
An engine monitor/egt/cht gauge for someone who learns to fly? Let alone a GNS430 → for VFR? Again, I am thinking of primary/basic LAPL/PPL instruction here. The less whizz and shabang distractions the better. At later stage of training (for navigation) do include an ipad or panel mount vfr GPS.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well… Some people have had problems with some kinds of tablets while other people (including me) have never had any problems with the same tablets. So you can’t just expect any table to overheat.
Yeah and so for those people it’s better to have something reliable that isn’t going to overheat.
Airborne_Again wrote:
How does having two radios help with that? Unless you are two pilots and your audio panel allows you to split the radios between you.
Um well what I do is I put the primary radio slightly quieter but I can still hear it and will catch me getting called and secondary radio I listen to the ATIS. Yes, it’s talking over each other but with practice it’s possible to understand.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The primary instrument for leaning to peak is the EGT and not the fuel flow indicator. Actually you can do it even without an EGT although that is slightly more difficult. You can also quite well set power using rpm only (and MP, if you have a c/s prop). I add an additional 10% reserve on aircraft without FF (on top of my usual 10% contingency fuel) and that has so far always been enough for the uncertainty in power setting.
EGT is for diagnosing problems. Watch this to understand what I’m saying about FF and power setting: https://youtu.be/msYJxkHg0Co?si=yTixIaCtc1h3P8_C
Mike Busch is often misunderstood, especially as he likes to make controversial points.
EGT is used to set best economy, and best power, in addition to diagnostics.
In this thread topic, an engine monitor is desirable because it teaches the student about important things, but how many students will become owners? 1% ?
