The Magenta Line - McClellan article

Has anyone else had a chance to read Mac McClellan's article "The Magenta Line" in the August issue of EAA Sport Aviation? I know there are some magenta line naysayers out there, but I thought Mac had some good observations that I have been supporting all along since the big iPad boom with WingX, ForeFlight and other EFB's. The following is from the article;

Without a GPS we devote a great deal of time to determine exactly where we are. ......

With GPS all of that pilot concentration time spent on locating our position and determining our ground track and speed is now available continuously for other tasks. With GPS we have more time to scan for traffic, to monitor the engine and systems, and to keep up to date on the weather ahead. Aren't those more important to safety and maintaining situation awareness? I think so.

The real issue is that the magenta line frees us from cockpit chores that were previously essential because only the human could perform those tasks. Position finding and navigation are no less critical; they just can now be done by a machine with greater precision, giving the pilot time for other tasks machines can't do.

When I first learned to fly back in the 80's, I remember having a chart out in my lap with a compass ruler either doing deadreckoning or dialing in VOR radials to plot on the cart to see where they intersect. While I think these are great skills to teach students so they will have a means of backup navigation if they lost their GPS or other instruments, I agree with Mac that the GPS frees up so much of my time for other things, including sight seeing. It is also so nice now having a clutter free (paper free) cockpit.

So, what's the negative downside again?

However, I agree, The biggest improvement in IFR safety in recent memory is a good moving map. Trying to maintain situational awareness with a couple of needles on two VOR heads can lead to some rather fatal excursions. For example, we had a guy crash here a few years back and investigation suggests that he was tracking inbound to a (not quite nearby enough) VOR rather than flying the ILS. Not only would a good moving map show that "Hey, something is really wrong with the position" mine would have also warned two more ways:

1. Hey, you don't have the ILS frequency tuned and/or the HSI isn't set to display it.
2. TERRAIN AHEAD.

I believe GPS navigation becomes more essential as cruise speed increases. The faster you go, the greater the impact of slight variations in heading. But, what about us slower cruisers? I'm building a Pober Junior Ace and although I'm planning a VFR day airplane, I will have a portable GPS to help with navigation and, more importantly IMHO, operating through and around the big boy airspace. I will also have a panel mounted Comm and Transponder, which I think are very helpful if not essential just about everywhere these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickYoumans

With GPS we have more time to scan for traffic, to monitor the engine and systems, and to keep up to date on the weather ahead. Aren't those more important to safety and maintaining situation awareness? I think so.

---

Very true, but: Is it being used this way?

I'm based out of an airport kind of in a funnel area; the Class B airspace presses overhead and there's an arm of it nearby that goes even lower. Some folks who aren't from around here are worried about the proximity of the Class B.

A while back on another forum, I posted some details of ground reference points to help folks stay clear (e.g., "Fly due East toward the mall, staying below 1600, then follow the power lines"). One guy took offense. When he was THAT close to Class B (two miles), he was going to be watching his GPS, not looking out the window.

Sigh.

Ron "Window? I don't even HAVE a stinking window!" Wanttaja

Sigh. What a loss of perspective and priority. The purpose of Class B is to separate traffic. Better to assure traffic avoidance than assure navigation, unless you are worried about running aground.

Aviate, Navigate , Communicate.

Mac somewhat restored my faith in switchologists with that article in a couple ways:

1) His approach is that GPS and moving maps are a great tool to supplement a pilot's other required skills, not a replacement for them. One should have a pretty good idea of what's on the route and where they are on it without being glued to the GPS screen. Mac reads like the kind of pilot that wouldn't be flummoxed on his position if the magic box died...he's actively involved in navigation, but using a tool to make it a helluvalot easier.

When I flew the Champ I used a paper sectional because it's simple and easy to use in my landmark rich environment. In the Nieuport I use a little android tablet with iFly, even though I'm even slower in it than in a Champ. Why? It won't ever flap around or cause trouble in an open cockpit like a sectional can. Granted, I usually turn it to the virtual panel mode to glance at the numbers - particularly the vertical speed indicator.

2) His point on reduced workload is valid. If I need to divert, finding the Nearest Airport is as simple as hitting the Nearest Airport icon and selecting it. In a diversion situation it's a lot of stress taken off of me. I'm not having to do a lot of mental work there, and can concentrate on the import thing of flying.

Mac isn't a bad guy - he just comes at aviation from a different perspective than us Wings With Wire types; to be honest he's gotten a lot better at learning to make his views and perspectives relevant to pilots who don't necessarily view aircraft as a means of transportation.

[edit]

The negatives of GPS is the tendency to over-rely on it and becoming a slave to the Magenta Line. I wonder how many pilots that fly into clouds and wind up in harm's way were flying the box instead of the sky. Or not doing adequate pre-flight planning because one can "just program it into the box" and go.

I have flown with a GPS many times, but to say you don't know exactly where you are without one seems silly to me. I know exactly where I am using VOR/DME also.

I don't think moving map is a panacea to IFR navigation. There are plenty of examples where moving map has failed spectacularly to keep pilots and flight crews from screwing up. One of the challenges of instrument training from the "needle" days was using that information for visualizing ones position. The were numerous techniques and aids for deciphering what the needles were telling you. Some struggled with it during training but a good instructor was a gold mine. There is still a struggle to keep moving maps (and automation) from increasing pilot workload. After all, a moving map is supposed to make this stuff easier, right?

I didn't say it was a panacea, I just said it was a significant improvement to it. Much as I like my autopilot, I'd give it up before I gave up the moving map display.

Any skill that is not regularly exercised will atrophy. Fly around with the autopilot on from takeoff to touchdown and stick and rudder skills will deteriorate. Don't practice navigating (pushing a "direct to" button is not navigating) and those skills deteriorate. Despite making a task easier, at some point there has to be a balance between fundamental motor skills of flying an aircraft and high tech. Right now I think the fundamentals are suffering because too many are enamored with the latest gizmo.

On the other hand, my way of thinking may be completely obsolete. For all I know, the pilot model for the new age aviator may be someone that has just enough skill to get the aircraft on/off the ground. Once airborne he can rely on technology to do the rest and when that fails pull the parachute handle. I imagine it won't take too much longer to get the takoff and landing part automated as well. Push a button to takeoff, push a button to land and pull handle in an emergency. The rest of the time can be utilized to take selfies and instantly posting to social media via datalink until arriving at destination. The flying aspect will be a side bar to the event.