General Aviation Safety: Trained With Paper Maps, Flying With Digital Maps

Stumbled upon this article about GA safety, thoughts?

I find it to be aggravatingly inaccurate and overly generalized. For example, "Pilots trained with conventional (analog) tools, are untrained in the use of new (digital) technologies, which are not generally certified by aviation authorities." -- apparently training with analog gauges means you're unable to use an iPad or a Garmin Aera properly? Also, I'm pretty sure flight schools will train you how to use your GPS as well as analog gauges if the aircraft is equip with one...

Link: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8827991
PDF attached.

 

I think the author needs to get out more. My plane doesn’t have a GPS navigator but I don’t use an “aviation calculator” and compass to navigate. I got this new fangled EFB thingy that is all modern and what not.

 

I trained with paper maps 4 years ago for flight training, but transferred the map to ForeFlight when in plane. This carried through to my exam as the DPE wanted to see that students were trained on paper; but allowed ForeFlight with "Own Ship" feature turned off for check ride. DPE also said it's easier and more efficient during the oral to talk from a paper map.

I was trained on both paper and digital, and tested using both.

This is a pretty common approach for many students and DPE's, though mileage does vary.

 

From my school days, I don't recall the overly bright ones going into Journalism...

 

That was my first thought, but as it turns out, the author got her PhD for Civil and Environmental Engineering, focusing on aviation safety (https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/61833).

 

It is almost like the conclusion is, if it isn't certified by some government agency, we're all gonna die!!! Kind of ridiculous.

 

The article linked is from IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

I wonder if the author is a pilot.

Often articles are written by people who don't have extensive experience in a particular subject, regardless of whether or not they are scientists. Journalists face an additional challenge in that they are often called to write about various subjects about which they don't have deep knowledge.

 

The idea that you need "training" to tie your own shoes is silly. It's an iPad, not the space shuttle.

 

But the author’s data points and research are primarily UK, Canada and Norway, with US references being AOPA. AOPA is not an organization that does perform nor promote refereed research, hence it’s misleading.

 

Well, with paper maps, I had to constantly move my finger along the paper to keep tract of my position. Now that I have a GPS, I have found that I can just take a little vinyl dot sticker, put it on the middle of the screen, and it keeps up with my position all by itself. Turned out it wasn't hard at all.

 

Ah, the "north up vs course up" argument...

 

Sigh... I don't even know where to begin with this quote:

"Do they understand that a tablet can turn off at any time or that an Internet connection can be lost when in flight? These concerns not only arise for older GA pilots, but for younger pilots as well."

 

I navigate by tarot cards and a Ouija board. Magic 8-ball to break any tie.

 

So...let me get this straight...in September of 2019,

GPS is an emerging technology, is not meant to be used as primary navigation, and is not part of the official training for pilots.

Paper charts are “certified positioning technologies”.

Batteries can run dead...something GA pilots are unaware of.

Internet connection in flight can be a problem.

“Do GA pilots understand how satellites operate?” I’m guessing that if the internet’s batteries fail, the satellites will all fall from the sky.

Ok...I’m done reading. The author has shown herself to be an unreliable source.

On the other side of the coin, I agree with the premise that pilots need training in whatever they’re using. While self-training can be sufficient, my experience is that a large percentage of pilots lack the capacity for effective self-training. Of those that lack the capacity for effective self-training, a percentage also lack the capacity to effectively learn from others.

 

No law that an engineer can't exhibit profound ignorance in another arena. It's uniformed, generalized, and absent any experience, she isn't qualified to have a credible opinion.

 

Anyone here an IEEE member? I let my membership lapse years ago. A thoughtful, rational and factual letter, by a current member, to the editor is warranted, contraditing the stupidity...er....misapprehensions and the use of opinions rather than demonstrated and verified facts is warranted.

I’ll forward this to the aviation dept at the local university...couple of the adjuncts are IEEE members. Should be interesting....

Frankly, I expected better out of the IEEE.

 

Wait...what?!? Did anyone else know this!?

 

I all about apps, but most low time pilots need simple not a feature rich App like FF.

 

I don't see why the advanced features would be an impediment for low-time pilots. I have the most basic version of FF, which I mainly use it as a substitute for paper charts, and I've explored very few of the feature-rich aspects of it. (I don't object to the feature-rich aspects of it; I just haven't had time to familiarize myself with them.)

 

Typical of what is accepted as technical literature nowadays...

Most of the references can be fake and the author could just be lazy and fill in the factual gaps with made up $41t.

 

This is like, a double face palm thing?
I'm an old paper map guy and I don't understand anything invented after 1965.

I didn't file a flight plan. today. I hope I didn't kill any puppies.
Or hit any kids when I threw my tablet out the window.
Do dead batteries get reported to the FAA? I know dead people get reported.

 

Wait— is it just me or are the digital versions of the charts just exactly the same as the paper versions but on an iPad...facepalm!!! So just bring a paper copy of the chart as a backup and problem solved. I hope the author can sleep better at night now that he knows this huge issue is solved.

I was trained using paper charts but it took me literally 5 seconds to adjust to digital copies of the exact same charts on my iPad. This article is another example of how low the requirement is to “publish” things on the internet.

 

It’s an IEEE article. Perhaps it’s worse. An engineer! LOL.

 

"God help us. We're in the hands of engineers."

 

I'm an IEEE member and I just wrote in. This is an embarrassment for the society. Really, I think there many pilots who have not received training that batteries die, and safely figured it out.

 

Ya'd think that engineers would understand the concept of backups. I've got four digital maps in my plane, so I'd have to have 4 independent battery systems die to be without a digital mapping source.

 

I have to wonder if this turd of a study was sponsored by an anti GA group, with the end goal of putting more pressure to end GA.

 

I think the author's biggest concern is that technology like an iPad can fail in flight, and the pilot didn't plan for that. However, the author seems to (somewhat questionably) believe that student pilots almost always learn exclusively using steam gauges, no tablet, and no GPS (that actually does describe my recent training). Anyone who did their entire private pilot certificate training using nothing but old fashioned techniques should be fully qualified to handle a loss of EFB and/or GPS technology while in flight. The author can't have it both ways.

 

Other way around, super easy to teach someone who can fly IFR without any moving map and two nav heads and paper how to fly a G1000 with georef iPads, the inverse is not always true.

Much like transitioning a tailwheel guy to a 172

Back when I was heavy in CFIing my guys didn’t even have a six pack, no transponder. had a paper chart, they all made it back.

I did send them with a GPS, but I’d put a paper dot from a hole punch on it so I’d know if they used it, they were told not to touch it unless they were up a creek.

They all did great and transition to trikes and apps was a non issue.

Build a proper and fundamentals basic foundation and you’re golden.

 

When a pilot is placed under stress from a situation, simple is better and reduces errors. Besides, why pay for features you admit you don’t have time to learn?

 

There are some of us who can pick up just about any electronic device and figure out how to use it in minutes. There are also some of us who just never quite get it.

I have been a 'tech guy' for most of my life so I'm used to helping the second category with things. Something I've always noticed is that they're just afraid of the machine. If you look at it wrong you'll wreck this expensive thing, there are hackers on every website about to 'get you', etc, etc... I think these are the guys pushing this stuff. I learned on paper and then immediately transitioned to foreflight. To me, while I think it's valuable to understand how the app figures out what it does, apps like foreflight are a far more straightforward and therefore safer way to go. Less chances for me to make a mistake and mess up. I have multiple devices to navigate with in the airplane, means to charge them, etc. I'm quite happy with my level of redundancy. The devices don't scare me, they scare some folks a lot it seems.

All I can say is how many pilots from the pre-GPS days had scary stories about getting lost vs pilots in the post-GPS time period? I think it's pretty clear the technology has made us safer overall.

 

The two highest growth accidents and incidents are losing control of the aircraft on the ground, and runway incursions.

The accident rate per hours flown doesn’t bear out this statement. Very little about electronic charts has made any real measurable impact in safety. In fact, there’s no measurable link whatsoever.

They’re just more convenient than lugging paper around, as long as the battery is charged.

 

When used solely as a source of electronic charts, the unfamiliar features are not a problem for me because the software is designed such that I don't have to use them.

The most basic subscription level is cheap enough so that I feel I'm getting my money's worth just to have the electronic charts. "Your mileage may vary."

 

Trained on paper sectionals, manual e6b, pencil and calculator W&B performance calculations. I could have started with electronic versions of all this and my first CFI asked which I wanted to train with. I told her manual/paper. Also started training in the most basic 172 on the line - 6 pack. one com radio, one nav radio, no gps, (it did have an ADF lol, but I think it was inop). Anyway, I wanted to learn the basics and understand the principles behind navigation, systems, how the aircraft flies.

Transitioned into an aircraft with better avionics (430w, ads-b in/out, flightstream, etc.) Started using Garmin Pilot on my XCs just to check my dead reckoning. On my long XC I actually used GP and the 430 to navigate. Fast forward to checkride - still used paper to plot my cross country. After I passed the practical and the DPE and I were chatting back at the FBO, he said this is the last time I will probably use a paper sectional. He was right.

Never really worry about batteries dying in the iPad since the 430 does a good job of showing the flight plan (on a tiny tiny screen, but it works). Even if that died, I am confident I could get to where I'm going or get home pulling out the sectional I still carry. Lots of good landmarks around and I can hold a heading (and I fly with flight following so vectors are always an option as a last resort).

side note - funny someone mentioned north up/track up... first time I used the 430 with my cfi, I immediately tried to switch the view to track up... he rolled his eyes and said, "Don't tell me you are a track up guy..." we both laughed, I put it back to north up and have been a north-up guy ever since. Drives my wife nuts in the car when I use the nav since she can't stand north-up...

 

Did anyone see a date on that article? I couldn’t find one.

Sounds like either a rehashed article from 20 years ago, or a recent paper written by an ERAU online undergrad.

 

"Published in: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine ( Volume: 38 , Issue: 3 , Sept. 2019 )"

"Date of Publication: 10 September 2019"

 

Good lord. So it must have been an ERAU assigned paper...

 

Published in: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine ( Volume: 38 , Issue: 3 , Sept. 2019 )
Page(s): 74 - 81
Date of Publication: 10 September 2019
ISSN Information:
Print ISSN: 0278-0097
Electronic ISSN: 1937-416X
DOI: 10.1109/MTS.2019.2930272
Publisher: IEEE

 

It's odd that the PDF contains a slightly different date at the bottom of the first page:

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2019.2930272
Date of publication: 30 August 2019​