Flight Computer / Plotter for PPL

jasonb

Hi there,

I'm doing the PPL, I'm about halfway through but have had to take a break for a few months due to money issues! However, I bought the Nav / Meterology book so I could study while not flying and hit the ground running ( so to speak! ) when I get up in the air again.

From reading the Nav stuff, it seems pretty clear that I'm gonna need a Flight Computer and maybe some sort of plotter / scale ruler. Is this correct?

If so, I was looking at these, could anyone give their opinion of them, will they do the job, or not get used and be left in a drawer somewhere? Thanks in advance...

J.

Flight Computer :
http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=301&products_id=38

Plotter :
http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=301&products_id=39

Stovepipe

Hi there,
I have and use a metal E6B, the American equivalent and it's 19 years in service now and looks pin-perfect.The British CRP(or equivalent) series are mostly plastic, quite durable and cheap and have a handy rotating arm with an etched red line for lining up various scales to read off.The E6B tend to have bigger lettering and are easier to read.It's what I'd go for....The plotters are all pretty much the same and don't tend to last too long (as they end up jammed into flight bags and get worn out or broken)so buy two.Also, buy chinagraph pencils and fluorescent markers. You'll use them a lot.
regards
Stovepipe

jasonb

Good advice, thanks a lot for your reply!

J.

nag

If it's just for PPL flying, then I'm sure it'll do the job but if you plan on getting a CPL or ATPL, then get a CRP-5.

As for plotters, I have one of these. While I really like how you use it, I have found that it can be about one degree out on reciprocal headings, which in an exam, is not what you want. I have gotten by with it though. I haven't used any other one but I do know a lot of people who use this one from AFE so maybe that's a better one to go with. My advice is to ask different people what they use and get some feedback before purchasing. It's all about personal preference and what you're most comfortable with.

Manic Moran

I have and use a metal E6B, the American equivalent and it's 19 years in service now and looks pin-perfect.

My manual E6B is basically card, I wouldn't say they all are.

I very quickly retired it in favour of an electronic E6B, which looks a lot like a pocket calculator (and can be used as such). All of $70US, which isn't a hell of a lot considering the cost of flying and it has made calculating things much easier for me. Also comes as an iPhone app for $9.99. For that price, you probably can't go wrong.



It has a lot of unit conversion options, but I don't know how much difference there is between US and European units in the world of Aviation or how easy it is to use the other vice the one. (I'm guessing you don't calculate fuel burn in US Gallons per hour in Ireland).

As far as plotters go, this one has done anything I need it to do: Measure distances and bearings. Made of a plastic sort of material.
http://sportys.com/PilotShop/product/9284

NTM

Stovepipe

Hi all,
I used my E6B thru all the ATPL exams, without a problem.Some computers don't have the higher airspeeds associated with high-speed flight planning but mine did so there was no need to replace it.There are also small pocket-sized versions which are very handy.Apart from that, MM, some old-school instructors will not allow you to use an electronic E6B until training is finished.
regards
Stovepipe

Ald

If money is of concern hit Ebay... I got two bargains over last couple of months. Something that I was quoted €140 with PTC I picked up for £20 incl. P&P and something I was quoted €120 in Dublin I picked up £13.50. You may need to wait a while for something to come along but you can get lucky!

Manic Moran

Apart from that, MM, some old-school instructors will not allow you to use an electronic E6B until training is finished.

Is that not the purview of the aviation authority? Electronic E6Bs are specifically authorised by the FAA for training purposes, for example: If an instructor refuses to let you use an electronic one, you'd have an argument for taking your money elsewhere. The result is what counts.

NTM

nag

Manic Moran wrote: »

(I'm guessing you don't calculate fuel burn in US Gallons per hour in Ireland).

That all depends on who made the aircraft. If it's American made, then yeah, you'll probably be using US Gallons. If it's European made, everything will probably be metric or possibly imperial.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The result is what counts.

That is true but what's the use in using one for all your training flights when you're not going to be allowed use it in your written exams (and probably your flight test too). You won't have practised enough with a manual computer to be confident with one in the exam.

@Ald What was it you were buying?

Ald

Was CRP5 and Route Manual...

nag

Yikes!

Manic Moran

That is true but what's the use in using one for all your training flights when you're not going to be allowed use it in your written exams (and probably your flight test too). You won't have practised enough with a manual computer to be confident with one in the exam.

Well, if it's prohibited in the test standards, that's fair enough. If it's just 'the examiner won't let you', I wonder if you can't ask him to point out the reg that says it's prohibited.

NTM

Stovepipe

Hi MM,
Our ATPL instructor taught us how to use programmable calculators,(Sharp made one, which was allowed by the IAA) which allowed you to carry out ATPL flight planning calculations in rapid order, which was and is quite legal for exam purposes.I don't know if the electronic E6B is allowed for exam/flight test purposes over here.I doubt if any instructor over here would allow you to use an electronic one as your sole source of calculations.They'd still want you to do wind vector calculations the old way.
regards
Stovepipe

Manic Moran

Stovepipe wrote: »

I don't know if the electronic E6B is allowed for exam/flight test purposes over here. I doubt if any instructor over here would allow you to use an electronic one as your sole source of calculations.They'd still want you to do wind vector calculations the old way.

Drawing triangles on a piece of paper with a ruler and protractor? That's just asnine.

Surely just do it once or twice just to be sure the student understands the principles being used, but then move to something designed to make it easier. Especially if he's paying the instructor by the hour! Again, if it's prohibited by the regulations in the test, that's one thing, but if it's a case of examiner discretion, its silly.

Just seems daft, coming from this side of the water. I know: Ireland's different to the US. Not ranting, just observing.

NTM

Growler!!!

Manic Moran wrote: »

Drawing triangles on a piece of paper with a ruler and protractor? That's just asnine.

Surely just do it once or twice just to be sure the student understands the principles being used, but then move to something designed to make it easier. Especially if he's paying the instructor by the hour! Again, if it's prohibited by the regulations in the test, that's one thing, but if it's a case of examiner discretion, its silly.

Just seems daft, coming from this side of the water. I know: Ireland's different to the US. Not ranting, just observing.

NTM

UK CAA will not allow electronoc flight computers in the ATPL's cant speak of IAA.

With a E6B or CRP flight computer the batteries will never run out - no matter how long it is sitting in your flight bag:D

I know you can have spare batteries but honestly who doesnt have a few dead AA batteries stuck in a pocket somewhere of their bag - I know I do:P

nag

Manic Moran wrote: »

Drawing triangles on a piece of paper with a ruler and protractor? That's just asnine.

Surely just do it once or twice just to be sure the student understands the principles being used, but then move to something designed to make it easier.

That's all well and good but what happens when your digital computer fails and you're overhead an airfield with no windsock (using the triangle of velocities example). It's just like anything else really, if you don't practice it regularly, you'll lose the skill or become rusty.
Another example... when you're doing your PPL, it's all map reading and dead reckoning. Once you've got it though, what's one of the first things people invest in? A GPS. Then they decide to get a CPL and after many hours hour-building with a GPS, their map reading skills and DR are shocking.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Especially if he's paying the instructor by the hour!

If you're planning a nav, then you're instructor is not going to be sitting over your shoulder watching you do it everytime. Yes, they'll have to demonstrate what you need to do the first or second time but after that, they let you do the planning on your own and afterwards they'll quickly check it's correct, ie. you're not getting charged while they're off having coffee... at least I wasn't.



To be honest, I think it's just a practical approach.

Manic Moran

UK CAA will not allow electronoc flight computers in the ATPL's cant speak of IAA.

Well, that's a different matter.

With a E6B or CRP flight computer the batteries will never run out - no matter how long it is sitting in your flight bag

If you're flying at night, you must have a working light source in the cockpit (At least under US regulations). Should you have to carry around a book of matches and a candle in case the batteries on your torch are run down? One has a pre-flight checklist for the airplane, why not have one for your flight bag which includes checking the batteries? An E6B of any sort, either electronic or whizz-wheel is not mandated equipment for flight in the US, so to me mandating which ones to use seems a bit daft.

Another example... when you're doing your PPL, it's all map reading and dead reckoning.

Speak for yourself: I was a heavy user of VOR triangulation. Then again, there's a lot of bland open space and VOR beacons in this country (Plus baisc PPLs can fly at night, so terrain association is kindof hard). I see where you're going, but if it's a perishable skill, then mandating it at the test stage is still pointless as people will take the easy way out once they've passed the test anyway and there go the skills. 'Train as you fight, fight as you train', as we say.

NTM

nag

Manic Moran wrote: »

Speak for yourself: I was a heavy user of VOR triangulation. Then again, there's a lot of bland open space and VOR beacons in this country (Plus baisc PPLs can fly at night, so terrain association is kindof hard).

Ah, I forgot about using navaids but the point remains, people just rely on GPS (just as an example) more and more these days so along with their map reading skills as I already said, their proficiency with the use of navaids will also diminish. The general point I'm making is if you rely on something that means you don't have to perform certain tasks anymore, then you're going to get rusty.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see where you're going, but if it's a perishable skill, then mandating it at the test stage is still pointless as people will take the easy way out once they've passed the test anyway and there go the skills. 'Train as you fight, fight as you train', as we say.

What people do after their training is up to them. To pass the test, you need to demonstrate you have certain skills and be able meet a standard. If you don't practice those skills, then your standard won't be as it should.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on technology or anything but I think people need to keep practising what they've learned and not allow themselves to be complacent (which is no easy task!).

Manic Moran

The general point I'm making is if you rely on something that means you don't have to perform certain tasks anymore, then you're going to get rusty.

This is true, but if it's a skill that isn't going to be used in real life, then so what? It's the difference between testing something for the sake of testing it, and testing something which has real-world application.

Sorry, it's just one of my hot-button issues, I realise it's a theoretical discussion at this pont. We waste all sorts of time in the Army navigating from one point (stake in the ground) to another in the hills by use of a map, compass and pace count. It's a mandatory test that needs to be passed in order to be certified as 'fit to deploy'. But after ten years in the US Army, with deployments in two theatres, I have yet to encounter a situation where such a skill is required even as a backup. If, for some reason in the mountains of Afghanistan, I lost all my nav/commo systems and my colleagues, I won't be walking in straight lines with a compass in one hand and ranger beads in the other, let alone looking for a stake in the ground. Why do they insist on it in the test? Because it's the way the test's always been done? At least the Army has figured out it's wasting time in the combat lifesaver course. Almost half of it is spent on giving an IV. A great lifesaving skill to have in theory, in practice used so infrequently by the average trooper they've decided they're better off devoting student time and brainpower to something which will be used.

I can see sailors still being taught how to use a sextant in case GPS fails. I think it should still be taught in the Army as well. The difference is that if GPS goes down, that's due to factors beyond your control. If your electronic flight computer goes down, you can change the batteries. If you can't, no big deal, it's not mandated equipment for flight anyway.

In a nutshell, for all the time and effort a student spends either in the air or at the testing site twirling his manual computer around when in real life he's going to be spending it doing something else, is that really where the emphasis should be placed?

NTM

nag

Before you sit your driving test, you're taught how to navigate and indicate around a roundabout. How often do you see poeple doing it properly in real life? Probably the majority of the time, people don't bother. Does that mean people shouldn't be taught how to indicate on a roundabout when they're learning to drive? Absolutely not. People should always indicate correctly as it prevents accidents and confusion.

Just because something isn't done by the masses in real life, doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be taught it during your training.

We could go round and round in circles on this so I'm going to leave it there.

Manic Moran

I've always thought that was a good thing about the Irish driver's test, that it didn't really emphasise so much the rules and regulations as much as real-world control, competence and courtesy. Any monkey can follow the speed limits during the test, for example, and everyone knows that as soon as the examiner steps out of the car (and no Gardai are in sight) speed limits go rather out the window. Indeed, I've known people failed for following the posted speed limit, on the grounds that they were failing to make due progress and were impeding the normal flow of traffic. Do that in the US, and you're failed for failing to follow the regulations to the letter, real-world be damned. My guess is that's what makes the Irish test so hard to pass. It's that sort of real-world emphasis in testing which I think should be an example to follow.

NTM