Is it cheating

[TMetzinger]

Well said. Much more concise and it doesn't ruffle feathers.

I might have to steal that.

Do it fast before the Internet gets shut down!

 

[Everskyward]

I think the answer here depends on whether or not you are cheating yourself. I got my IR in a G1000 with SVT. This made a lot of sense for me since it was my plane and some four years later, 99% of my hours are in that plane behind the same avionics package. IR training is a fantastic opportunity to gain proficiency with a G1000 since so much time is spent learning how to deal with failure modes. I think the pilot flying behind a G1000 with say an AHRS failure is better off if they are trained to land safely with that failure than a pilot with more limited G1000 experience but proficient with a six pack.

There is a big HOWEVER here. Because almost all my training and flight time is with SVT, I am in no way proficient to fly a six pack plane in IMC. I can fly a G1000 plane with SVT and any failure you can think of including two black screens, but that s not the same thing. I don't even think I would want to fly behind a G1000 without SVT in IMC unless I practiced a little before.

So my answer to your question is if you think you are going to fly a plane without SVT in the clouds and fly approaches in actual conditions, yes you are cheating yourself in a very dangerous way. If the answer is no, then the more practice you have with the equipment you will fly, the better.

I agree with this. For example, if your airplane doesn't have an ADF and you never intend to do an NDB approach then there really isn't any point in learning other than for curiosity's sake. In fact, even if you do learn and you never use it you'll forget pretty quickly. We don't make people learn the old four-course radio ranges either. I realize that NDB approaches are more common in other countries but many people will never go there.

Of course this limits the number of airplanes someone will be able to fly safely IFR. But if that's not an issue then I don't see a problem. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who spent most of my career on the trailing edge of technology and hadn't flown a fully glass airplane until less than four years ago. I've never flown one with SVT. I don't really have a strong preference of glass to steam. They are just two different ways of presenting information and they both take some learning to be able to use effectively.

 

[PilotAlan]

Ron and Doc Bruce,
Not to hijack, but what's your opinion of training with an IFR GX55 (terminal and enroute with a CDI) and a KX155/Nav/GS?

 

[Henning]

Synthetic Vision during IFR training
-Sythetic vision provides an outside view on a glass cockpit equipped airplane.
Cirrus's LVL function in the Perspective System during PPL training
- LVL function is a 1 button that is advertised to recover the airplane from any attitude and return the aircraft to straight and level.

Thoughts?

I say yes to both, they are cheating.

I read an article about Aspen's CEO getting his IR and he used it during training. I am dubious about the value of Synth Vis during training.

Also, one of the best things about PPL training is gaining the confidence of "yes, I can do this" and knowing that you can bring yourself safely back to earth. LVL command somewhat takes this away by providing an electronic Flight Instructor (so to speak).

SVT isn't cheating, it's a different system of controlling the plane in IMC. I've been saying it for a long time, an SVT-IR rating will take 2-3 hrs in the plane training. Most everything to learn with SVT will be procedural rather than physical. SVT makes an A/P superfluous unless you're just lazy and don't want to fly.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not to hijack, but what's your opinion of training with an IFR GX55 (terminal and enroute with a CDI) and a KX155/Nav/GS?

I think it's a great idea -- if that's the equipment with which you'll be flying after you get your IR. Otherwise, I suggest training with what you'll be flying later -- Laws of Primacy and Exercise, and all that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've been saying it for a long time, an SVT-IR rating will take 2-3 hrs in the plane training.

You're saying a PP-ASEL would be capable of passing an IR practical test in a plane with SVT with only 2-3 hours of IR flight training? If so, I think you should get your CFI with ASE and IA ratings, and train ten or fifteen people for their IR's (including some with SVT and some without) before you say that again.

Most everything to learn with SVT will be procedural rather than physical. SVT makes an A/P superfluous unless you're just lazy and don't want to fly.

I'm one of the first to say that an a/p should not be a crutch, but if you're going to fly several legs a day SPIFR, an a/p is not superfluous, it's a fatigue reducer which can be the difference between being physically able to fly four hours or eight hours in one day safely.

 

[PilotAlan]

I think it's a great idea -- if that's the equipment with which you'll be flying after you get your IR. Otherwise, I suggest training with what you'll be flying later -- Laws of Primacy and Exercise, and all that.

That's what's in my plane. Is that either not or enough or too much, or should I get a second NavCom installed and do it without the GPS?

 

[Henning]

You're saying a PP-ASEL would be capable of passing an IR practical test in a plane with SVT with only 2-3 hours of IR flight training? If so, I think you should get your CFI with ASE and IA ratings, and train ten or fifteen people for their IR's (including some with SVT and some without) before you say that again.

When 12 year old kids can fly an approach to minimums with 20 minutes of stick time, yep that's what I'm saying. Everything else that is required to be learned for an IR can be done on the ground just as easily and well. With SVT, an IR becomes more like a Type Rating. You do a type with a couple hours in the plane as well, because the flying part isn't the issue really, the issue is making the equipment function correctly; learning the systems and buttonology is what takes time with an SVT system where as with the '6 pack' instrumentation system (whether glass or mechanical indications), the majority of the 40 hrs are spent getting comfortable interpreting 7+ individual readings into a comprehensive 3D mental picture and then applying it to a 2D chart. With SVT that does not happen. You are delivered a graphic 3D representation of your situation where recognition of spacial orientation is delivered naturally with no interpretation required.

BTW Ron, how many hours flying SVT do you personally have and how many instrument students have you taught on SVT equipment?

 

[poadeleted20]

When 12 year old kids can fly an approach to minimums with 20 minutes of stick time, yep that's what I'm saying. Everything else that is required to be learned for an IR can be done on the ground just as easily and well.

Like I said, your lack of experience giving training for instrument rating is showing. Train a dozen or so, and you'll change your mind.

BTW Ron, how many hours flying SVT do you personally have and how many instrument students have you taught on SVT equipment?

Close to 100 hours and about four (from memory). How many instrument students have you trained on SVT equipment? Or any equipment? When you have even half my experience giving instrument training, you'll be a lot more credible on this subject.

FWIW, I've discovered that you can cut the amount of training flight time needed by about half with proper use of flight simulation devices, but 2-3 hours of flight time? Not unless you have a megabuck motion-base flight simulator to do the training in. It ain't happening in an ATD or FTD, and I have six years experience training people for their IR's using FTD's and ATD's to complement their flight training on which I base that statement.

 

[Jaybird180]

What types of simulators do you use? Does the simulation level help with the learning curve?

 

[RotorAndWing]

You do a type with a couple hours in the plane as well, because the flying part isn't the issue really, the issue is making the equipment function correctly;

And what airplane is this that you can do a type only by flying a couple of hours?

 

[Henning]

And you are typed in what?

Was given the company program for the BAe 3100 for TR at a 121. A month + of training which included 10 hrs in the sim. All the rest of the time was classroom learning systems. Every other TR program I've looked at was the same. What TR program is there that spends near the time on flying that it does on systems? You are expected to know how to fly a plane when you show up, same as for an IR. Differences between the 'flying' of different types of planes aren't that great. When you eliminate having to learn instrument interpretation you save a heck of a lot of flying time in the learning process.

 

[poadeleted20]

What types of simulators do you use?

With PIC, I have used the Elite PI-135 and the ATC-610J.

Does the simulation level help with the learning curve?

The modern Elite ATD is a better teaching tool than the antique ATC-610J FTD for a lot of reasons even though it is a "lower level" flight simulation device, primarily related to the developments in technology in the 40 years since the ATC-610J was designed, so I can't say it's a fair comparison.

 

[poadeleted20]

And what airplane is this that you can do a type only by flying a couple of hours?

You oughta know that with the right experience and equipment, per 61.64, you can get a type rating without ever flying the real plane. But I don't think that's what Henning is talking about.

 

[poadeleted20]

Henning isn't typed in anything:

HENNING LUDWIG HEINEMANN

1612 SE 12TH ST APT 22
FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33316-1428
County: BROWARD
Country: USA

Medical Class: Second, Medical Date: 8/2011
CertificatesCOMMERCIAL PILOT
Date of Issue: 8/27/2010

Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT Print this certificate
Ratings:
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

Limits:
ENGLISH PROFICIENT.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Was given the company program for the BAe 3100 for TR at a 121.

But you're not typed.

A month + of training which included 10 hrs in the sim. All the rest of the time was classroom learning systems. Every other TR program I've looked at was the same.

Not sure what programs you're looking at, but that's not accurate.

What TR program is there that spends near the time on flying that it does on systems? You are expected to know how to fly a plane when you show up, same as for an IR. Differences between the 'flying' of different types of planes aren't that great. When you eliminate having to learn instrument interpretation you save a heck of a lot of flying time in the learning process.

Like I said, you've obviously never done a type rating to be making an assumption such as that. Flying the airplane while integrating the systems knowledge as well as the various flight techniques particular to that airframe make it a bit more complex than you are alluding.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You oughta know that with the right experience and equipment, per 61.64, you can get a type rating without ever flying the real plane. But I don't think that's what Henning is talking about.

True, but the "flying" still takes place in a simulator, and is quite a bit more involved than "just a couple of hours" as was alluded.

 

[poadeleted20]

True, but the "flying" still takes place in a simulator, and is quite a bit more involved than "just a couple of hours" as was alluded.

I'm with ya on that! Perhaps if Henning got his CFI and trained a few people, he'd understand the issue better.

FWIW, I bagged another PASS yesterday -- with a trainee with only dual nav/comms in the plane (although the NSD-360 HSI made some stuff easier until I covered it up and made him fly a single-radio partial-panel approach from an intersection FAF). Talk about back-to-basics. He's promised to come back later when he puts the 430 in for appropriate follow-on.

And further, in some ways, it takes less time to train someone in a plane like that than in something high-tech. In the basic plane, I only have to teach them the basics. As you add equipment, I also have to get him/her proficient on all that other stuff, like DME arcs, NDB approaches, and GPS use (which takes some time, especially if they haven't done a good training program on the GPS before I get them) as well as all the degraded modes. I figure one extra day of training for each extra device -- DME, ADF, and GPS.

 

[L.Adamson]

I'll be blunt.....

There is a lot dead pilot and passenger blood scattered across the mountains around here! And a good portion were during the termination, or plans of opening an IFR flight plan in route. GPS and synthetic vision are not "cheating". They are a tremendous improvement over older methods!

As I've said in the past, if your instructor demands that you throw the GPS into the backseat, then throw them out!!! In reality, many instructors are not familiar enough with panel mounts, let alone the variety of portables. I just wish they'd admit the fact.

In the meantime, at nearly 61 years of age, I've seen the results of far too many flight into terrain accidents. Thanks to advancments in technology, it just doesn't need to happen anymore.

L.Adamson

 

[Alexb2000]

Henning isn't typed in anything:

HENNING LUDWIG HEINEMANN

1612 SE 12TH ST APT 22
FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33316-1428
County: BROWARD
Country: USA

Medical Class: Second, Medical Date: 8/2011
CertificatesCOMMERCIAL PILOT
Date of Issue: 8/27/2010

Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT Print this certificate
Ratings:
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE SEA
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

Limits:
ENGLISH PROFICIENT.

Is this kind of thing cool on this board?

Seems a little rough to me, this is all just talk (hopefully friendly).

 

[TMetzinger]

I'll be blunt.....

There is a lot dead pilot and passenger blood scattered across the mountains around here! And a good portion were during the termination, or plans of opening an IFR flight plan in route. GPS and synthetic vision are not "cheating". They are a tremendous improvement over older methods!

As I've said in the past, if your instructor demands that you throw the GPS into the backseat, then throw them out!!! In reality, many instructors are not familiar enough with panel mounts, let alone the variety of portables. I just wish they'd admit the fact.

In the meantime, at nearly 61 years of age, I've seen the results of far too many flight into terrain accidents. Thanks to advancments in technology, it just doesn't need to happen anymore.

L.Adamson

No argument that technology CAN make things better. But only when ADDED to the fundamentals, not as a REPLACEMENT for them.

 

[bbchien]

Ron and Doc Bruce,
Not to hijack, but what's your opinion of training with an IFR GX55 (terminal and enroute with a CDI) and a KX155/Nav/GS?

Train in whatever you are going to fly.
The GX55 is not of much value in an IR checkride- no approaches.
So you fly an ILS, a loc, and a VOR approach, and you pass.

 

[L.Adamson]

No argument that technology CAN make things better. But only when ADDED to the fundamentals, not as a REPLACEMENT for them.

The fundamentals, if that refers to old school.........will be replaced.

 

[bbchien]

Certain fundamentals- not. As in, exceed critical AOA, and the houses get quite large rather quickly.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks to advancments in technology, it just doesn't need to happen anymore.

I'll be equally blunt -- it didn't need to happen before, either. Point is, GPS and SVT can fail. If you can't navigate safely without your GPS or SVT, you don't belong in the air. That's why when you train with me, you must learn how to use everything you have in your airplane, but you also must learn how to operate if it any of it fails.

 

[TMetzinger]

The fundamentals, if that refers to old school.........will be replaced.

Nope. TECHNOLOGY (NDB/VOR/Markers) may get replaced, just as four course ranges did.

Fundamentals like ded reckoning? Not going away. The ability to look at a chart (paper or an image) and say "I was here 30 minutes ago before the GPS receivers failed, and I've been flying at 120 knots at a heading of 135 degrees means I was on a course of 120 degrees and I should be HERE and I need to climb because that ridge up ahead is higher than I am" remains a requirement.

 

[L.Adamson]

Nope. TECHNOLOGY (NDB/VOR/Markers) may get replaced, just as four course ranges did.

Fundamentals like ded reckoning? Not going away. The ability to look at a chart (paper or an image) and say "I was here 30 minutes ago before the GPS receivers failed, and I've been flying at 120 knots at a heading of 135 degrees means I was on a course of 120 degrees and I should be HERE and I need to climb because that ridge up ahead is higher than I am" remains a requirement.

Of course...

 

[L.Adamson]

I'll be equally blunt -- it didn't need to happen before, either. Point is, GPS and SVT can fail. If you can't navigate safely without your GPS or SVT, you don't belong in the air. That's why when you train with me, you must learn how to use everything you have in your airplane, but you also must learn how to operate if it any of it fails.

That's beside the point. It's unfortunately a fact, that many high time pilots, as well as low time; including military, commercial, and instructors.......have met their demise along with their passengers at a critical moment, when situational awareness was lost. GPS and SV can reverse that trend.

So.............let's take the pilots out of the equation, and place yourself as a passenger. When a big splash of red is blinking on the GPS terrain warning page, would you want it ignored? It happened with a fire tanker that slammed into rising terrain at 280 kts, just on the opposite side of the peak from where I live. The first officer who was flying, mentioned to the captain that the GPS was showing terrain. The captain, didn't respond, and the first officer just followed the captains heading recommendations........to the end.
It's all on the cockpit recording. That little Garmin 396 portable would have saved the day, if there had been better communication between the first officer and captain.

I could go on and on, with examples such as the United Airlines DC-8 that slammed in to the mountain close to home in 1977, or two IFR instructors who hit the mountains in this state, and so forth. I hope that some get the point. New technology is NOT CHEATING! It's just a vast improvement that pilots and passengers didn't have in the past.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's beside the point.

No, it is the point.

It's unfortunately a fact, that many high time pilots, as well as low time; including military, commercial, and instructors.......have met their demise along with their passengers at a critical moment, when situational awareness was lost. GPS and SV can reverse that trend.

Is it your contention, then, that those should be mandatory equipment for all instrument flight? And even if they were, then those are systems which can fail, and you must be able to handle any single system failure in flight short of catastrophic failure.

I could go on and on, with examples such as the United Airlines DC-8 that slammed in to the mountain close to home in 1977, or two IFR instructors who hit the mountains in this state, and so forth. I hope that some get the point. New technology is NOT CHEATING! It's just a vast improvement that pilots and passengers didn't have in the past.

No, it's not cheating, but if you're going to get your IR, you must be able to get along without it, just like pilots of traditional 6-pack planes must be able to safely complete an instrument flight without the vacuum-powered gyros.

 

[L.Adamson]

No, it's not cheating, but if you're going to get your IR, you must be able to get along without it, just like pilots of traditional 6-pack planes must be able to safely complete an instrument flight without the vacuum-powered gyros.

An instrument rating has been done the way it's been done for years, and a few changes have come along. However, let's assume that the vacuum powered gyros fail. What's the preference in this more modern day and age? Just go to partial panel, or perhaps use SV if you have it, & at least a GPS derived 6-pack................unless you leave the GPS at home, or in the back seat.

Another case in point. This accident occurred about five years ago. A local pilot was near the completion of an IFR cross country flight. In order to land at his untowered airport, he cancelled IFR and made a turn towards the airport. It was a pitch black night, but plenty of city lights below. Due to some low lying clouds in this mountainous area, he flew through what we call a white out. The lights disappeared, and he became disoriented. Turning east, he flew low altitude over a few subdivisions located at the base of the foothills. Seconds later, the aircraft slammed into the mountain, and erupted into a fireball.

We hear about these accidents all the time, don't we? One in Arizona just recently. So what's wrong with a "big picture, moving map GPS with colored terrain warnings............and audio to go along with it. IMO...........it's because of a few CFI's..........that the title of this thread has even come up. It shouldn't! To even contemplate that using a superior navigation device, is any way cheating is obsured! Just a few years back, there was a CFI on one of these boards who considered GPS as a seductive toy..........and not much else. I hope he's long gone.

BTW--- those GPS derived 6 pack's work very well. Even the altitude will exactly match an aircraft's altimeter thats just been set.........for at least a few minutes. Then of course, the GPS altimeter will remain correct, while the aircraft's is only good for seperation & ATC. I know, because I've used Garmin panel pages for years.

 

[Ted]

Adamson, I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.

There is a lot of benefit to you as a student to learning the fundamentals the old fashioned way. Primarily, that benefit is in situational awareness beyond the moving map.

All these additional tools are excellent to have. But if you're doing them from the get-go, it ends up hurting your development in situational awareness. Towards the end of your training is when it's a good time to start implementing those things, because adding them is quite easy by comparison.

 

[L.Adamson]

Adamson, I think you're missing the point that people are trying to make.

There is a lot of benefit to you as a student to learning the fundamentals the old fashioned way. Primarily, that benefit is in situational awareness beyond the moving map.

All these additional tools are excellent to have. But if you're doing them from the get-go, it ends up hurting your development in situational awareness. Towards the end of your training is when it's a good time to start implementing those things, because adding them is quite easy by comparison.

As I've said, I've been around much too long, to be missing any point. I've argued this point with many old school instructors ( who are exactly like some on this board), and have found many instructors who are much more open minded in regards to new technologies.

We need to look up that "test", which was conducted a few years back. Students were separated into the traditional six pac group & Cessna 172's with the Garmin 1000. The Garmin 1000 students began with navigation on day one. The outcome, ended with the "glass panel" students receiving their PPLs with substantially less hours than the six packers.

I suppose I'll just have to find it on the net...........

One other question? In your mind, just what do the fundementals consist of? Besides pilotage & charts, is it the use of the primitive VOR system? That's nothing more than an electronic system, that replaced an inferior navigation system before it.

 

[Ted]

One other question? In your mind, just what do the fundementals consist of? Besides pilotage & charts, is it the use of the primitive VOR system? That's nothing more than an electronic system, that replaced an inferior navigation system before it.

I don't care much about the use of the VOR system per se. The main difference between a VOR and the GPS on a CDI is that the VOR is typically going to be less stable. You are correct, it simply replaced an inferior system and, itself is being replaced.

What I do care about is ability to pinpoint where you are (at least within a general "I'm about here") other than by simply looking on a moving map with a plane on it and saying "Oh, there I am." Situational awareness is paramount in flying in general. A moving map is a tremendous aid to it, but should not be your only way of being able to figure out where you are beyond looking at a map that tells you "I'm here."

Also, I'm not the sort of instructor that fails things just for the sake of failing them. There's a specific purpose and intent for every failure or challenge that I give the student. Usually because it's something that's happened to me.

 

[ChrisK]

(I should stop hijacking threads but this one already went off the rails and the topic is similar to the last few posts)

My instructor and I planned my dual cross country today. I'm comfortable with math and with maps, so I was able to bust it out quickly and plan out another route with him in the time allotted.

One thing that came up was that during our dual cross country I'd be flying with triangulated VOR to verify my check points. I agree with this philosophy 100% and think it is important. I showed him Naviator on my Samsung Galaxy S II, and he said that would be perfectly fine to use on my solo cross country to enhance situational awareness after I demonstrated proficiency using VOR on the dual.

Cheating?

 

[Ted]

(I should stop hijacking threads but this one already went off the rails and the topic is similar to the last few posts)

My instructor and I planned my dual cross country today. I'm comfortable with math and with maps, so I was able to bust it out quickly and plan out another route with him in the time allotted.

One thing that came up was that during our dual cross country I'd be flying with triangulated VOR to verify my check points. I agree with this philosophy 100% and think it is important. I showed him Naviator on my Samsung Galaxy S II, and he said that would be perfectly fine to use on my solo cross country to enhance situational awareness after I demonstrated proficiency using VOR on the dual.

Cheating?

Not cheating. It's using the tools as you would use them in your real flying.

The advantage of training otherwise is that if you are training at say, a level 10, then your level 5 flying is that much easier.

 

[poadeleted20]

One other question? In your mind, just what do the fundementals consist of?

Time, heading, speed, and distance for navigation, and attitude and power for aircraft control. Everything else is just an aid.

 

[L.Adamson]

Time, heading, speed, and distance for navigation, and attitude and power for aircraft control. Everything else is just an aid.

I prefer using a computer or a cell phone, as an aid..........instead of tapping out Morse code for the normal course of conversation. Like a moving map GPS, these aids are more efficient, and allow more time for the brain to concentrate on other events such as scanning for birds and other aircraft.

In today's world, do we really want to teach students to fly.....just by the basics that you've listed above? Or is it more important to know exact boundaries for so many restricted airspaces that exist across the country, or the ability to plan hundred of miles in advance for weather.....without having to maintain contact with an FSS. Not to mention TFRs, obstacles, etc.

Is there a problem with creating more direct routing, rather than hop scotching between VORs, or triangulating which requires more eye time in the cockpit, instead of scanning the sky ahead?

If it all goes to ****, won't synthetic vision beat interpreting dials, while nothing but shades of gray or black are seen out the windscreen?

Why not just teach all of this at the beginning, instead of creating the illusion that it's cheating or an unnecessary aid. My forefathers crossed this country with wagons and oxen. Doesn't mean I have too.

L.Adamson

 

[TMetzinger]

My forefathers crossed this country with wagons and oxen. Doesn't mean I have too.

L.Adamson

No, unless we run out of gasoline. But you still know how to walk, and which direction the sun rises and sets in, right?

The "all goes to ****" we're talking about here is... an electrical fire so you've shut down all your glass, and all you have left is your standby instruments on their own power source, and probably an hour or less before that runs out. Oh drat. The batteries in your handheld GPS are dead - you meant to check them but you were rushed this morning.

So... what'cha gonna do? Hopefully you knew where you were when you cut the power. Hopefully you know where VFR might be (and hopefully within the hour). Hopefully you have a rough idea of what the cloud bottoms and tops are in the area.

If you're in luck and well prepared, you can probably head for VFR using the compass and a watch, and your chart and altimeter to keep you out of the terrain.

Or you might know that the bases in your area are 2000 AGL, so you might try a descent to an appropriate altitude and hope you break out.

At the worst, you don't know where you are, you don't know where the bases are, and you don't know where VFR is. Using the instruments you have left, you can set up a descent at just above minimum controllable airspeed, with full flaps, and hope you go visual before you contact the ground. If you don't, at least you've done your best to minimize the impact energy, and you're maintaning control all the way down.

 

[Alexb2000]

I prefer using a computer or a cell phone, as an aid..........instead of tapping out Morse code for the normal course of conversation. Like a moving map GPS, these aids are more efficient, and allow more time for the brain to concentrate on other events such as scanning for birds and other aircraft.

In today's world, do we really want to teach students to fly.....just by the basics that you've listed above? Or is it more important to know exact boundaries for so many restricted airspaces that exist across the country, or the ability to plan hundred of miles in advance for weather.....without having to maintain contact with an FSS. Not to mention TFRs, obstacles, etc.

Is there a problem with creating more direct routing, rather than hop scotching between VORs, or triangulating which requires more eye time in the cockpit, instead of scanning the sky ahead?

If it all goes to ****, won't synthetic vision beat interpreting dials, while nothing but shades of gray or black are seen out the windscreen?

Why not just teach all of this at the beginning, instead of creating the illusion that it's cheating or an unnecessary aid. My forefathers crossed this country with wagons and oxen. Doesn't mean I have too.

L.Adamson

I agree.

Part of the issue is that the whole system has come to expect a level of navigation technology, on-board weather, and ability to quickly make changes on the fly. Busy airspace is just not managed in a way conducive to a guy looping along at 90 knots with a pile of charts on his lap taking 3 minutes after an instruction to figure it out, dial it up, and get on course. Controllers often don't even alert you to weather when IFR, because they're so used to everyone having on-board radar, or XM, or both. They also might tell you what approach to expect, but don't give you the details about inbound routing until you get the clearance, which will usually come very late (because they expect you to adjust instantly).

I just don't think it's realistic to expect a 100 hour per year casual pilot that might shoot 1-2 in actual per year to be able to handle the system as it is in a /U, no auto pilot, basic aircraft, without making a lot of mistakes. The workload is just too high without some technology to help.

 

[Everskyward]

I just don't think it's realistic to expect a 100 hour per year casual pilot that might shoot 1-2 in actual per year to be able to handle the system as it is in a /U, no auto pilot, basic aircraft, without making a lot of mistakes. The workload is just too high without some technology to help.

What do you think people did 10-15 years ago?