Advanced Avionics vs. Conventional instruments

Craig Stuart said:
Haha, the dreaded road atlas days. Thinking back, how in the heck did we navigate major metropolitan areas while driving to Wally World in the family truckster on vacation with the family...
Click to expand...
Don't forget looking up wally world in the yellow pages or calling the operator for the number. And shopping the Sears catalog.

Seems like ancient history.
 
Does anyone else remember AAA TripTiks?

53474128684_55794415b5_z.jpg


“Track Up” of course!
 
Craig Stuart said:
Haha, the dreaded road atlas days. Thinking back, how in the heck did we navigate major metropolitan areas while driving to Wally World in the family truckster on vacation with the family...
Click to expand...
I think my situational awareness was better when I planned things out beforehand on a map and watched for street names and numbers vs “turn left in 500’”.
 
FastEddieB said:
Does anyone else remember AAA TripTiks?

53474128684_55794415b5_z.jpg


“Track Up” of course!
Click to expand...

We used a similar thing, made by cutting up charts and marking and putting order for high speed, low level flights.

Try 500 feet or below at 480 knots with a full chart and North up.
 
Aceman said:
A lot of interesting input here.. thanks guys!

Question: who is this tnflygirl? What is her story?
Click to expand...
Look in the mishaps forum. It's probably the longest recent thread.

Edit: yep, 19 pages so far.

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Youtube Pilot and her dad perish in TN

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/tennessee-plane-crash-giles-county-knoxville-company/51-6eb93be0-b05c-4e0f-9151-bbd0970f79b0 https://www.youtube.com/@tnflygirl :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
Based on a couple of threads, including this one, I think the OP needs to stop thinking in terms of “better or worse” and learn to focus on advantages and disadvantages that can be applied or overcome.
 
orca64 said:
I used to fly B-52’s and B-1’s years ago. I’ve been flying since 1976. I’ve witnessed the steady march of technological advancement over the years.

Growing up with very basic instruments and learning and using all those new technologies as they were introduced has given me a perspective that might not be popular with “push button pilots”, but that’s ok.

It‘s my considered professional opinion that while many of those new, advanced avionics and autopilots make life considerably easier for all of us as pilots, far too many younger (by experience level) pilots rely completely upon those technologies. As a direct result, Situational Awareness is sorely lacking in the generations of pilots who grew up using only modern, high tech avionics.

I do not have a sheaf of empirical studies proving this. However, anecdotally, I started to see the differences between old and new in the B-1 before I got out of the Air Force After 12 years. Different outlooks, different attitudes, different priorities in the cockpit. In many cases, these differences in experience and basic knowledge base caused a noticeably diminished SA.

Twenty-six years flying Part 121 (and GA as well) after the Air Force did not change what I saw, day-in and day-out. In fact, over those years, I noticed that even many “old timers” became dependant upon the complex avionics and especially, the wonderfully capable, integrated autopilots. The Faa’s max use of automation push accelerated the loss of basic skills.

It’s easy to lose basic hand flying and finger counting skills if you use profile mode coupled to the autopilot from climb out to DH. Again, anecdotally, I saw this while instructing and evaluating in the military and in 121 operations. It’s also easy to lose that feel for the aircraft that tells you what you can and can’t do with your aircraft, and what you should or shouldn’t try. I urged my students to ”use the force” as much as possible. Some did, some clearly thought I was crazy. Oh well.

I freely admit that I am an anachronism, a dinosaur. I hand flew the airplane whenever it was legal to do so. Whether the jet or the simulator, I hand flew without auto throttles whenever I could. i used all those wonderful modern systems when they were necessary, but I never used them as a “crutch” because it would make the line check easier.

In a perfect world, every new pilot would learn to fly in a basic airplane with basic instrumentation to learn those basic skills necessary for good situational awareness. The romance with fancy displays and autopilots that far outstrip the less experienced pilots
abilities would come later.

Somehow, I really don’t see that happening. But it would make things a lot easier when that MFD goes out in the weather or the autopilot won’t engage and the weather is well below forecast. But those things could never happen.

Right?
Click to expand...
I really like what orca64 had to say.

I think the OPs question needs to be answered from two perspectives:

1. In a training perspective.
When pilots train with only basic stuff, they have to participate more in the flying, navigation, fuel management, etc. Let's call this traditional training. This builds skills and SA when flying. Their flying skills also improve because they are doing more in the air. Compare that with training with advanced avionics that do a lot of this for them. They don't have to do as much. This is "children of the magenta". I would argue that training with only basic stuff produces a better pilot.

2. Pairing "children of the magenta" with advanced avionics.
This is actually redundant. My experience is that they cannot fly without the advanced avionics. Or cannot go very far and are always afraid of traffic, have difficulty finding the airport, etc.

3. Pairing traditionally trained pilots with advanced avionics.
This is a great combination. Safer than without the avionics although they are pretty safe without. I would argue they are safer than "children of the magenta".
 
Been flying VFR with round gauges for many, many years. I am now currently doing IFR training with the same round gauges.

I never really appreciated advanced displays until I started flying IFR and it all has to do with the scan. With round gauges, the scan covers a large spatial area, and I'm not just talking the six-pack. Gotta be looking at the nav display and GPS as well which is to the right of the six-pack. So my scan covers a fair amount of panel space. With an advanced display, most everything you need is right in front of you. Scan area is smaller and less head swiveling. I can definitely see how glass reduces the cognitive load in IFR flying.

So to the OP's original question, my $0.04 (inflation dontcha know) ...

If all you're gonna do is fly VFR on nice days, an advanced (i.e., glass displays) won't add much. A good EFB on an iPad has more than enough capability for this kind of flying. If you're flying IFR, that's a totally different ballgame and definitely worth it.
 
Twenty years ago this system was installed in most commercial aircraft in Alaska. The accident rate dropped off radically.

Keep flying round gauges if you're more comfortable with them. Me?, I'd much rather just not hit anything with whatever technology is available.
dhc-209.jpg
 
I hated AAA trip-tiks. Just give me the damn map! And north-up seems more natural though use both now. Feel like more tunnel vision with track up.

Still review the whole route when using a car GPS before setting out. Which is what we did in the paper map days for those who seemed to be wondering. Kid just punches in destination and follows the prompts!
 
I find the arguments about technology "ruining" proficiency both amusing and repetitive false narratives. Just like using log tables instead of a calculator to determine a logarithm. Going old school does not increase proficiency nor does it promote understanding. The availability of new tools like GPS, in-flight weather, and electronic flight instruments have dramatically increased flight safety. But it does no obviate the necessity for the PIC to have a level of overall understanding of the application and limitations of these tools. Just like calculators are not the cause of bad math understanding.

I've seen this hoary argument repeatedly in higher ed. "[You name the item] will make students dumber." Modern tools can facilitate a DEEPER understanding of things, but that is of course the responsibility of the student to employ. Tools enable, but do not necessarily cause understanding. I had colleagues that insisted that students hand plot data on graph paper, while I was teaching the same students to graph data in plotting programs that could incorporate sophisticated modeling and regression analysis to extract information from and quantify the quality of said data.
 
don't discount the differences in human factors of one tech vs the other.
 
chemgeek said:
I find the arguments about technology "ruining" proficiency both amusing and repetitive false narratives. Just like using log tables instead of a calculator to determine a logarithm. Going old school does not increase proficiency nor does it promote understanding. The availability of new tools like GPS, in-flight weather, and electronic flight instruments have dramatically increased flight safety. But it does no obviate the necessity for the PIC to have a level of overall understanding of the application and limitations of these tools. Just like calculators are not the cause of bad math understanding.

I've seen this hoary argument repeatedly in higher ed. "[You name the item] will make students dumber." Modern tools can facilitate a DEEPER understanding of things, but that is of course the responsibility of the student to employ. Tools enable, but do not necessarily cause understanding. I had colleagues that insisted that students hand plot data on graph paper, while I was teaching the same students to graph data in plotting programs that could incorporate sophisticated modeling and regression analysis to extract information from and quantify the quality of said data.
Click to expand...
No argument involved. Not a false narrative. And not at all amusing.

Observations made over decades of working with pilots and seeing that the max use of automation over time made for autopilot cripples, to the point that some started to show degradation in their physical piloting skills. Seen it time after time in the B-1, the Airbus and the 777.

The less you fly, the more you need to.

It has nothing to do with book knowledge. Faculty lounge arguments about how to teach students concern the means to an academic end.

Over dependence on hi-tech in the cockpit actually erodes the pilots physical ability to safely conduct the flight regardless of weather or circumstance. The knowledge base is still there, but a rusty pilot is not a confident or capable pilot when it’s turbulent, 2400 rvr and the autopilot is inop.

Big difference between the academic and the real worlds.
 
Pinecone said:
I feel they are a mixed blessing.

There are a lot of people who follow the magenta line and have no situational awareness.

I see it when driving. When I used maps I knew where I was, but with GPS, I know I am on course to my destination. Maybe. :D

When flying, I make sure I keep in the loop. Using the tools to plan ahead, think about the what ifs.
Click to expand...
I like the one I read.

GPS is great at telling you are on 1st street and need left.

Situational awareness is recognizing that 1st street is a one way street and the GPS just told you to go the wrong way.

Brian
 
I learned maps in Pathfinder school and it was absolutely track up. Always, all the time. Match what you're looking at with the map. If you see a hill on your right, there should be a hill just right of your thumb.
 
orca64 said:
No argument involved. Not a false narrative. And not at all amusing.

Observations made over decades of working with pilots and seeing that the max use of automation over time made for autopilot cripples, to the point that some started to show degradation in their physical piloting skills. Seen it time after time in the B-1, the Airbus and the 777.

The less you fly, the more you need to.

It has nothing to do with book knowledge. Faculty lounge arguments about how to teach students concern the means to an academic end.

Over dependence on hi-tech in the cockpit actually erodes the pilots physical ability to safely conduct the flight regardless of weather or circumstance. The knowledge base is still there, but a rusty pilot is not a confident or capable pilot when it’s turbulent, 2400 rvr and the autopilot is inop.

Big difference between the academic and the real worlds.
Click to expand...
So the argument you are essentially making is that flying would be safer without access to newer technology, which certainly false. Automation and technology did not make pilots less capable, just like calculators didn't make students less adept at math. If pilots (or students) are less adept at critical skills, it is because they are being trained wrong. Technology is supposed to enhance and supplement performance, not replace it. If I had a nickel every time I heard "in the old days..." I'm old enough to remember the "old days" when training for my IR. It wasn't safer or "better" to fly with less technology in the 80s. It's way better now, and technology has played a big part in that.
 
I’m not making any argument at all. You’re missing the point completely.

In your own words, “technology is supposed to enhance and supplement performance, not replace it”.

What I’ve said is that I have observed, over many flights, and many years, a degradation of basic piloting skills because of the FAA mandate for the max use of automation. Many pilots, young and old become so enamored of those technologies that they let their hand flying skills deteriorate because they engage the autopilot at minimum altitude and kick it off at DH, then pat one another on the back to celebrate a “good” flight.

Along with that loss of stick and rudder skill, basics like calculating descent rates for crossing altitudes also suffer.

If Profile Mode coupled to the autopilot and auto throttles is used every flight, is that really so hard to understand? That pilot will become less adept, less capable.

Once again, the less you fly, the more you need to.

I don’t dwell in the past. Things change, some for the better. But we’re all much better pilots when we use those new technologies as tools to reduce our workloads, not as crutches necessary for the successful completion of the maneuver or flight.
 
orca64 said:
I’m not making any argument at all. You’re missing the point completely.

In your own words, “technology is supposed to enhance and supplement performance, not replace it”.

What I’ve said is that I have observed, over many flights, and many years, a degradation of basic piloting skills because of the FAA mandate for the max use of automation. Many pilots, young and old become so enamored of those technologies that they let their hand flying skills deteriorate because they engage the autopilot at minimum altitude and kick it off at DH, then pat one another on the back to celebrate a “good” flight.

Along with that loss of stick and rudder skill, basics like calculating descent rates for crossing altitudes also suffer.

If Profile Mode coupled to the autopilot and auto throttles is used every flight, is that really so hard to understand? That pilot will become less adept, less capable.

Once again, the less you fly, the more you need to.

I don’t dwell in the past. Things change, some for the better. But we’re all much better pilots when we use those new technologies as tools to reduce our workloads, not as crutches necessary for the successful completion of the maneuver or flight.
Click to expand...
Everything you have said here points to a (initial and recurrent) training culture issue, not a technology issue. You solution is...for pilots to not use available technology? I'm not sure that's a win either. Certainly in GA, emerging tech has tremendously enhanced safety and flight management. It doesn't relieve pilots of actually understanding how to operate their aircraft proficiently.
 
orca64 said:
Hey, the GFC-500 gives 55 year old GA SE airplanes capabilities that some airliners didn’t have 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

And depending on the airline and what they are willing to pay for, still don't.
 
chemgeek said:
Everything you have said here points to a (initial and recurrent) training culture issue, not a technology issue. You solution is...for pilots to not use available technology? I'm not sure that's a win either. Certainly in GA, emerging tech has tremendously enhanced safety and flight management. It doesn't relieve pilots of actually understanding how to operate their aircraft proficiently.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t point to a training culture issue.

Initial training must ensure that pilots are proficient in the operation and use of all available systems. Recurrent training reinforces proper procedures, systems knowledge and operations and crew coordination. The required maneuvers during each required phase of training are dictated by the Feds. Historically, the FAA has recommended maximum use of available automation in all phases of flight.

Except for required Category II and III approaches, pilots undergoing training may use any level of automation they desire during training or evaluation events. That choice belongs to the individual pilot, however, very, very few ever hand fly or use less than full automation, whether in the simulator or in the jet.

KISS. The less you fly, the more you need to.

No one, including me, would suggest that pilots not use the technologies available to them. Once again, my point has been that too many pilots view the very thought of flying with lesser levels of automation as a very unusual attitude. Pun intended.

This needs to change, or soon we’ll have legions of autopilot cripples who don’t really have a feel for their aircraft because they’ve never really flown it, only managed it. This does nothing to enhance flight safety.

We‘re not systems managers. We’re pilots. It’s incumbent upon each of us to be prepared for any and every eventuality. Hope for the best.
Train for the worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top