Basic skills and flight training...

[Frank Giger]

So I was done reading Mac's article in July SportAviation and came away both vehemently disagreeing with him and acknowledging his points, something that's routine with me when I read his stuff.

His initial point was that teaching the standard waypoint and sectional navigation methods and torturing students with the mysteries of the E-6B is out of sync with how folks actually fly and should be removed from the syllabus and the standards for the checkride.

His example of a student being forced to make reference checkmarks every ten miles had me guffawing - that's not the standard I was taught and counter productive, as he pointed out. Checkmarks should be where they're needed and easily found, distance dictated by both the landmark itself, the speed of the aircraft, and visibility. On my cross country I used just three - an initial to point me in the right direction, a mountain that was right off my path three quarters the way, and a lake that set me up for my destination. I had some "fall back" points should visibility suddenly vanish (meaning I'd most likely divert or turn around), but for aiming and location tracking they were spread out enough so that I wasn't focused on the map, and tied more for diversions and location than anything else. For my checkride I got lucky and the evaluator put my mythical destination pretty close to what I had actually flown and he okay'd my plan once I explained it to him.

Mac's right - those of us in the paper map on the kneeboard ranks are getting thin, and most folks are using some sort of GPS to navigate with (and I'll confess to using the original GPS of roads and railroad tracks). He's also right that the rare chance of GPS failure is often overstated.

And I've never seen anyone whip out a whizzwheel once they get their plastic card.

What he's missing, IMHO, are the critical learning skills that come hand and glove with the old 'analog' methods we still demand of students.

It's not the how of plotting a course by hand using a sectional, scale, and E-6B that's important so much as the why of the tasks. Pick a point that will point you in the general direction of your flight. Crosswinds will effect not only your inflight bearing, but your ground speed. What's the backup plan - where are the diversion points, and when is it best to turn around to get to the closest ones? What sort of terrain is on the path if one has to put it down off airport? Hands-on-the-map training is the best way for a person to cement the ideas into the head; when he winds up pushing the NST button on the GPS when he needs to divert he'll have a basis for making the best decision of what's presented.

The E-6B is as archaic as the slide rule because that's precisely what it is! What it lacks in technological savvy it makes up for in visual relationships, however. Miles to knots relationship obvious the first time one converts. Airspeed +/- wind = groundspeed = time of flight over distance = fuel consumption....laid out on thin cardboard with the numbers sliding past each other. Flip it over and make the dots, turning with the wind to show one's actual heading, a perfect visual and tactile representation of the concept.

He's missed the point on ground reference maneuvers, which he said should be dumped in favor of precision flight - defined as flying precisely straight and level on a given heading. I see Mac's point, since he's coming at it from the perspective of a person who thinks of aircraft as transportation; for an IFR kind of guy, flying on a particular path in the sky is a critical task. But he misses the purpose of the rectangular pattern or circle around a point; they're to show a pilot can perform well in the portion of flight that sees the most fatalities - the pattern. It's the same for slow flight; a pilot that can't perform slow flight well is a good candidate for the infamous spin-at-base-to-final and a ground loop if in a conventional aircraft. S turns over a road are really about turning downwind to base and base to final in a crosswind, when one thinks about it.

I'm not in the I-Hate-Mac camp, and his blog has improved immensely to speak to the EAA audience, but this time I'll respectfully disagree with him. Am I off the mark, playing the dinosaur because I'm an analog pilot?

[L16 Pilot]

Regarding the GPS: when I fly my trip to Oshkosh (about 150 NM) although I have my airport to airport installed in my IFLY GPS with it's current sectional data base I still keep my finger on a paper map mostly for the 'big picture' and probably a security blanket. It's nice to see the road or lake or other marker appear where it's supposed to be.

[Fastcapy]

Maybe I am just goofy, but I actually enjoy sitting down with a sectional, plotter and E6-B and plotting out my trip. Granted, I do fly it off GPS but I have the plotted route on the map with me in the plane just in case.

Regarding flight maneuvers, I agree that slow flight, step turns, s-turns etc are needed and useful to develop the seat of pants feeling of flying. Which is how I fly my sonex. No ifr panel, no autopilot just the basics and those are just a quick glance verify what I feel.

[Mayhemxpc]

I absolutely agree with the importance of using paper maps and circular slide rules and the E-6B (which is actually the back side of the computer) to help visualize and understand very important concepts. That said, I have to admit to not using paper since I got Foreflight. I do, however, sill pull out my circular flight computers once in a wile. (The Jepp CR-2 has functions I still do not fully comprehend.)

Ground reference maneuvers are important for pattern work, but they are much more important than that. First, because a lot of flying time for most pilots is NOT spent going point to point but just flying around…looking at the ground, the sky, enjoying flight. Ground reference maneuvers are very important for doing these things safely. Second, and more important, we are training people to be Pilots in COMMAND. This is not just a legal term. The pilot should be in complete command of his or her aircraft, master of all it can do, where "the successful outcome of a maneuver" or anything else the pilot wished the craft to do "is never in serious doubt." Even in commercial pilot operations, ground reference maneuvers are critical. Agriculture, aerial photography, pipeline patrol, wildlife resource management, "Bush pilot" operations all depend on complete mastery of those maneuvers. The Civil Air Patrol's work with Searchand Rescue and Disaster Relief (and other missions) absolutely depend on a very high competency level of flight using ground references.

If all we focused on was "precision flight - defined as flying precisely straight and level on a given heading" all we would succeed in doing would be to provide candidates for Asiana Airlines.

Chris Mayer
N424AF
www.o2cricket.org (http://www.o2cricket.org)

[Frank Giger]

I like Mac's idea of putting GPS stuff into the student syllabus until one realizes that it would become testable.

In order to be able to test a student on his ability to use a GPS for flight planning, GUI and software would have to become standardized across all GPS units. Innovation just went out the window, as we know how often the FAA changes and adapts to new technology.

Here's a "for instance:"

Student A is asked what would he do if he had to divert due to weather. He's got the latest WeGoUp BR549 unit and presses the DVT button, which is a cool feature that evaluates weather and traffic and suggests the airfield he should go to, along with heading, distance, and relevant airport info.

Fail.

The FAA guidelines for flight examiners says he should press the NST button and go to the nearest airfield.

To solve the disconnect, the FAA then puts out a warning to WeGoUp for non-compliance of FAA standards (if they managed to put them into the market, figuring an extra feature is not throwing them out of TSO status) and an AD saying they've either lost their TSO and have to be removed or a software update that disables the feature installed.

At least until they go through the whole "comment-and-decision" process that can take years.

[WLIU]

For my entire lifetime, there has been a split in the aviation community between the "aviation is transportation and all that matters is driving the airplane from A to B" camp, and the "aviation is about flying in all three dimensions, mastering the environment and the machine, camp.

Richard Bach wrote about it in the '60's (see A Gift Of Wings). He pointed out that all of the individuals he called "flyers" could fly from A to B, but many of the individuals who operated aerial transportation were helpless when the fancy stuff in the panel stopped.

Fast forward to 2014 and we see airlines sending their staff to "unusual attitude" or "upset" training, and the FAA in the beginning process of expressing concern about decline in crew airmanship skills.

And glass cockpits have not yielded the promised decreases in the accident rates. There are new types of accidents now. At my field, a couple of years ago we had a pilot come down final and never look up from the cockpit display until impact on the runway.....

The PTS book should include one concise line for cross country navigation skills. "The applicant shall demonstrate the ability to plan and execute a cross country flight without the use of electronic aids." No more. Use a map, an abacus, a whiz-wheel, a sextant or whatever, but nothing that uses electrons.

Best of luck,

Wes

[MEdwards]

At my field, a couple of years ago we had a pilot come down final and never look up from the cockpit display until impact on the runway.....How do you know that? Did he survive the crash and admit to it? Or a surviving passenger's report? Or are you making this up and pinning it on somebody who isn't alive to defend himself?


The PTS book should include one concise line for cross country navigation skills. "The applicant shall demonstrate the ability to plan and execute a cross country flight without the use of electronic aids." No more. Use a map, an abacus, a whiz-wheel, a sextant or whatever, but nothing that uses electrons.Yes, sir. May I please, sir, at least use my electric telephone to call Flight Service to check the weather?

[zaitcev]

Yes, sir. May I please, sir, at least use my electric telephone to call Flight Service to check the weather?
Nope. Morse code only for you. And none of these fancy-pants side-to-side keys.

[WLIU]

"How do you know that?"

Because the pilot walked away from the damaged aircraft. Thankfully the airplane had fixed landing gear. As I noted, he navigated right down to the runway.

I am not creative enough to make this stuff up. Real life is much more interesting than TV. And it is important not to color your conclusions with what you want the result to be. Technology is only effective if the pilot is effective. Look out the window and fly the airplane.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[MEdwards]

Good. I hoped that was the answer.

[Frank Giger]

For my entire lifetime, there has been a split in the aviation community between the "aviation is transportation and all that matters is driving the airplane from A to B" camp, and the "aviation is about flying in all three dimensions, mastering the environment and the machine, camp.

Wes

I'd be a bit more generous than that in saying that the transportation guys are looking to master flying, but concentrating on different skills.

It also got me thinking this schism developed very early in aviation, back in the barnstorming days.

On one hand you had Voss doing power off loops and landing dead stick on a dime for properly awed crowds, showing pilot skills and stunts that nobody would routinely attempt today.

On the other there was Lindbergh staring at a poorly lit panel in pitch darkness proving that the mail could be delivered regardless of the time of day and visibility using the cutting edge of technology of the day to "automate" flight.

Both camps had more than their fair share of wrecks perfecting their arts.

I reckon that if one were to put them together they'd soon disagree on what "real flying" was all about, no matter how respectfully. Both were dangerous occupations that relied on different focus of piloting skills.

Today the schism is much narrower because the bulk of pilots fill the void between them. Aerobatic and stunt pilots are a tiny group that get our notice by name, and true transportation pilots (commercial airline) are nearly nameless because they do their jobs too well.

Even in the GA population, the numbers of instrument rated pilots is thin compared to the bulk and those that are current makes it even thinner - mostly because the average IFR Joe is going to fly VFR whenever possible. Yet the schism still exists, and gets over magnified.

Why?

First, there's a bit of elitism that goes with an IFR rating, which is natural. It's a skill set that isn't easy to obtain and maintain (time and cost) and it shows a dedication to flying. While intellectual curiosity in everything aviation isn't the sole bailiwick of instrument ratings, they do go hand in hand. This was the thinking behind one of Mac's articles about the difference between pilots and aviators, where he was a bit clumsy and cast the average VFR only pilot as akin to the Sunday Duffer. Like most things Mac writes, he's a bit right and a bit wrong - intellectual curiosity is mutually exclusive of ratings.

Second, there's a bit of reverse snobbery on the part of the self proclaimed "stick and rudder" group* that will snort at automation and computerization as useless information overload. The Macs of the world aren't really flying the aircraft so much as managing systems, and at best are sucking the fun out of it almost criminally and at worst is resulting in people who are ill equipped to meet with critical tasks when the electronic fairy dust runs out....if they're not being led to their deaths by blindly following it anywhere it would lead when it's seeming working perfectly. It's a thinking that is as wrong as IFR snobbery.

Third, and I think most importantly, there's a huge financial gain to maintaining the schism by manufacturing firms. If we're to believe their press a pilot who doesn't have the latest dual flatscreen system isn't just behind the times, he's doing it wrong. And they go after us where we live - safety. Does a Cub really need an EFIS and a Garmin 796 with the moving map, artificial terrain, updating weather, and traffic informations? No. In fairness, it's an option beyond the standard panel for a Carbon Cub - but why? Because Garmin and the whole of the industry have done a full court press on us that in order to be safe and do things correctly we need their products.

Aviation related media is funded by them through advertising, and that directly influences how and what they write about. Not in the nefarious way one immediately thinks about, though. If I were running a magazine that featured a lot of advertisements about high tech avionics I'd make sure I had staff that were knowledgeable about it to give honest reviews and opinions about what companies are peddling on my pages. And since they're on staff I'd have them write on other stuff, too....and they'd all tend to focus on what they know and love best - IFR skills - using their experiences and viewpoints as a guide.

Based on the number of replies to this thread, I think I should have titled it "Mac is wrong again." ;)

* I'm card carrying member number 7686383.

[Louis]

If dead reckoning is going to be replaced by electronics it would seem to follow that we should not waste time in schools teaching kids how to do arithmetic by hand when there's pocked calculators everywhere. At least my kids are still doing long division and multiplication problems by hand and I'm glad for it. Even if one does have a calculator with him at all times having an innate sense of how the numbers work is very helpful for seeing whether or not the answer makes any sense when you hit the wrong key. The same , in my opinion is true of navigation. I just wonder how many pilots these days are punching the wrong waypoint into the gps and heading off in a direction which deviates absurdly from the course to their destination. ....Louis

[WLIU]

I will suggest that just as learning multiplication and division provides a foundation for using calculators, stick and rudder skills provide a foundation that you build on as you learn to fly more complicated airplanes and systems.

Or to put it another way, pilots still crash after shooting a precise GPS approach to a runway that requires circling to land, at night, with the clouds near minimums. This extreme example illustrates how a pilot can master the systems and the navigation, but fail in flying the airplane.

I will suggest that if we want to de-emphasize stick and rudder skills in our curriculum, then we have to stop complaining about the accident rate and just live with the number of crashes we see. A friend showed me a video the other day where a Mooney suffered and engine failure after takeoff. Started a turn with no visible lowering of the nose. Stall, spin, explosion on impact.

In truth, your average pilot is not often called upon to demonstrate superior stick and rudder skills. So we debate.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Frank Giger]

The thing that rocked me back in my seat when reading the article is that Mac was suggesting those things for students.

Now, then, if he was speaking about individual pilot proficiency training plans I'd be on board with him. As a very average pilot, I try to work through at least two of the things needed in order to fly a plane well besides boring a hole in the sky.