Is this too far?

[jesse]

I'm talking flight planning here. I cannot come up with a scenario where I'm going to go hunt down my POH, pencil, highlighter, plotter, E6B and sectional. Then, sit down at my dining room table find my waypoints, measure the distances, call up a briefer, get the winds aloft, plug that in, spin it in on the E6B, calculate my heading and fuel burn (or god forbid TOC) except to pacify a flight instructor or bureaucrat. I don't see any utility whatsoever in EVER doing it. IMHO CFIs/DPEs should familiarize themselves with current tools and embrace them, there's much better things a student could be spending their time on, like learning the tools they're actually going to use for that task, which are much more robust and complex. I got a panel GPS, a watch GPS, 2 iPhones an iPad and a portable GPS. I still have my sectional and AFD subscriptions and I still know how to use them. I don't use it for flight planning though. When my panel goes dark and the VOR's die, and all the GPS satellites cease to work, I know where I'm at and I'm diverting to the nearest airport on the sectional because I obviously have a problem. My first few hours I was scared of getting lost and intimidated, not saying I'm incapable of getting lost these days (that's why I still carry a sectional) but I no longer fear it.

The idea is to make sure you understand how to do all of that and understand the relationships. That way if you need to do one of those things it's believed that you know how. It's unlikely that I need to do all of those for any flight but quite often I end up doing some of that.

Since it's pretty impossible to test your knowledge by having you just do one thing..they have you do the works. It's not supposed to completely simulate one flight it's supposed to test your overall knowledge.

 

[Henning]

I'm talking flight planning here. I cannot come up with a scenario where I'm going to go hunt down my POH, pencil, highlighter, plotter, E6B and sectional. Then, sit down at my dining room table find my waypoints, measure the distances, call up a briefer, get the winds aloft, plug that in, spin it in on the E6B, calculate my heading and fuel burn (or god forbid TOC) except to pacify a flight instructor or bureaucrat. I don't see any utility whatsoever in EVER doing it. IMHO CFIs/DPEs should familiarize themselves with current tools and embrace them, there's much better things a student could be spending their time on, like learning the tools they're actually going to use for that task, which are much more robust and complex. I got a panel GPS, a watch GPS, 2 iPhones an iPad and a portable GPS. I still have my sectional and AFD subscriptions and I still know how to use them. I don't use it for flight planning though. When my panel goes dark and the VOR's die, and all the GPS satellites cease to work, I know where I'm at and I'm diverting to the nearest airport on the sectional because I obviously have a problem. My first few hours I was scared of getting lost and intimidated, not saying I'm incapable of getting lost these days (that's why I still carry a sectional) but I no longer fear it.

I use the same finger method to plan a flight as well (if I bother to plan it anymore, I know pretty much where most things in the country are and how to get there that I can rough it in in my head. I never have more than a rough plan of a long trip since weather changes along the way invariably will cause a reroute). Getting 'lost' is impossible, we live on a globe, worst that happens to me is becoming temporarily misplaced.

Nobody does a full flight plan after they get their PP because there is no need, it only takes doing it a couple times to figure it out and how gouge it well within the required accuracy of a flight plan. Thing is though, just like the differential calc exam, you still have to do it longhand for your test to prove that you actually know how to do it.

 

[denverpilot]

I only drive my car by GPS instructions. That chick is smart.

Knowing how to read a regular paper road map, or measure on a long trip to see if I'll run out of gas, or learn to pick out road signs, is silly.

(Need that sarcasm font...) It's about knowing how to navigate.

(That said, the MapQuest App on iPhone made a BRILLIANT detour Saturday that took me around an accident on the Interstate that I would NEVER have thought of. It even knew on and off-ramps were a mile long and took me off the highway, back on, stay in the exit lane -- no cars at all, all stopped next to me in the main lanes -- down a Frontage road, and back on the Interstate 100 yards past the accident to a completely empty Interstate. It was freakin' impressive. It estimated it saved me 10 minutes. I'd say 15-20 seeing how jammed the highway was.)

 

[gprellwitz]

You have to know the concepts to make the tools work, but it takes practice and experience to make it work without the tools, and that is part of the test requirements.

If you need any tool besides a chart, a clock and a compass, you are not ready to be PIC yet. In order to be in Command you need to have navigation mastered from every angle you have at your disposal, and that includes doing, get this now, it's really scary..., mental math.

Seriously though, if a person can't navigate using any method, they have no business in the front seats of a plane.

Henning, if this were anyone but you, I'd challenge them on their knowledge of celestial navigation!

If I understand your fuller thesis, though, it goes something along the lines of:
- Thoroughly understand the basics of navigation
- Use all tools in your toolbelt
- Come up with a good estimate (rule of thumb) based on your understanding of the fuller picture
- If your planned landing anywhere near the limits based on the accuracy in that rule of thumb, it's time to look for an alternate landing spot.

Is that on track, or am I off on a tangent?

 

[bflynn]

I don't see any utility whatsoever in EVER doing it.

Not suggesting that you must do it, but a useful purpose in pre-calculating your fuel burn is knowing whether or not you have enough go juice to make it to where ever you're going.

Yes, you can say "well it's 800 miles and I'm good for 900" and leave it at that and you'll almost always be right. Until that one time that you have the headwind and you're not right.

Again - not saying that the full blown flight planning like you did as a student is required - but there IS utility in it that isn't covered by what you're listed above.

Now - if you have a FuelScan or other such device...well you didn't list that. I'm a big believer in fuel monitors. I'm also a big believer in forward looking radar altimeters, but they're rarely installed.

 

[poadeleted21]

The idea is to make sure you understand how to do all of that and understand the relationships. That way if you need to do one of those things it's believed that you know how. It's unlikely that I need to do all of those for any flight but quite often I end up doing some of that.

Since it's pretty impossible to test your knowledge by having you just do one thing..they have you do the works. It's not supposed to completely simulate one flight it's supposed to test your overall knowledge.

IMHO you're wasting your students time. Did you ever toggle front panels on a mainframe? Or spend hours meticulously punching cards? Why not? I would say making students use a ruler, sectional, pencil and protractor is exactly like making them type in a rack of punch cards and load them into a mainframe. i.e. you're making them spend time learning superseded, inefficient technology to learn a trivial concept. A trivial concept that can be learned much easier and more thoroughly using current tools that present the material logically and get rid of all the "busy work".

 

[Henning]

Henning, if this were anyone but you, I'd challenge them on their knowledge of celestial navigation!

If I understand your fuller thesis, though, it goes something along the lines of:
- Thoroughly understand the basics of navigation
- Use all tools in your toolbelt
- Come up with a good estimate (rule of thumb) based on your understanding of the fuller picture
- If your planned landing anywhere near the limits based on the accuracy in that rule of thumb, it's time to look for an alternate landing spot.

Is that on track, or am I off on a tangent?

Pretty right on.

 

[poadeleted21]

Not suggesting that you must do it, but a useful purpose in pre-calculating your fuel burn is knowing whether or not you have enough go juice to make it to where ever you're going.

Yes, you can say "well it's 800 miles and I'm good for 900" and leave it at that and you'll almost always be right. Until that one time that you have the headwind and you're not right.

Again - not saying that the full blown flight planning like you did as a student is required - but there IS utility in it that isn't covered by what you're listed above.

Now - if you have a FuelScan or other such device...well you didn't list that. I'm a big believer in fuel monitors. I'm also a big believer in forward looking radar altimeters, but they're rarely installed.

DO wha? My computer will calculate all that faster and with better accuracy than I can with a pencil, protractor and E6B. I'm just saying I'm not going to sit down, draw lines, measure them, factor in winds and do multiplication on an E6B at my dining room table when there's a computer 8' away that will do it in nanoseconds far better than I can. AND it will allow me to look at all sorts of scenarios in a matter of seconds that would take days to calculate and compare using the dining room table method. Not to mention it brings all the data together much more logically than me sitting around drawing stick figures.

 

[Henning]

IMHO you're wasting your students time. Did you ever toggle front panels on a mainframe? Or spend hours meticulously punching cards? Why not? I would say making students use a ruler, sectional, pencil and protractor is exactly like making them type in a rack of punch cards and load them into a mainframe. i.e. you're making them spend time learning superseded, inefficient technology to learn a trivial concept. A trivial concept that can be learned much easier and more thoroughly using current tools that present the material logically and get rid of all the "busy work".

The difference is that today it's impossible to use a punch card for a computer while basic navigation skills will still work EVERY TIME with no functioning equipment except your brain.

The difference is one is a survival skill and the other an employment skill.

While you and I may consider navigational math trivial, I can assure that there are many people who do not have a full grip on it, seriously.

 

[Henning]

DO wha? My computer will calculate all that faster and with better accuracy than I can with a pencil, protractor and E6B. I'm just saying I'm not going to sit down, draw lines, measure them, factor in winds and do multiplication on an E6B at my dining room table when there's a computer 8' away that will do it in nanoseconds far better than I can. AND it will allow me to look at all sorts of scenarios in a matter of seconds that would take days to calculate and compare using the dining room table method. Not to mention it brings all the data together much more logically than me sitting around drawing stick figures.

Nobody expects you to after you prove to the DE that you know how by demonstrating it, no different from any educational process in the US. I don't do square root calculations by hand anymore either, but was required to do them in school, wanna talk about wasted learning time...

 

[poadeleted20]

Which ignores the fact that DPE's and not standards people do the check-rides.

Your statement suggests that DPE's are free to ignore FAA Order 8900.1. They aren't. Failure to follow direction from Flight Standards is grounds for revoking their designation. However, sometimes it takes time and complaints before their POI re-educates them. :wink2:

 

[poadeleted20]

Are you saying examiners are no longer testing on pilotage nav?

No, I was speaking to the Preflight Preparation area (specifically, the Cross-Country Flight Planning task) which was the subject of this discussion, not the Navigation area, which specifically requires the ability to use both Pilotage/DR and an electronic nav system in the aircraft.

There are still plenty of University level math courses that require longhand calculations be done.

I'm sure there are, but not the engineering courses to which I referred.

 

[poadeleted20]

IMHO CFIs/DPEs should familiarize themselves with current tools and embrace them, there's much better things a student could be spending their time on, like learning the tools they're actually going to use for that task, which are much more robust and complex.

The FAA Flight Standards office which sets policy for practical tests agrees with you. The only problem is getting that word to all the examiners out there, but AFS-800 is working on it.

 

[Henning]

No, I was speaking to the Preflight Preparation area (specifically, the Cross-Country Flight Planning task) which was the subject of this discussion, not the Navigation area, which specifically requires the ability to use both Pilotage/DR and an electronic nav system in the aircraft.

I'm sure there are, but not the engineering courses to which I referred.

Ah, got it, but PP doesn't really equate to an "engineering course", but rather more an Intro to Engineering Math prerequisite course where you still have to show your work longhand to prove you understand the concepts.

 

[JHW]

No one is going to do much flight planning after training. But by doing it by hand when you're learning you implant the basic concepts and that gives you the foundation to do things on the run later.

It's like all the stuff they teach you in engineering school. I might struggle to calculate the stresses in a structure by hand 20 years after leaving school, but because I used to do that, I have a good idea that this part is in tension, that part is in compression, and that lets me sanity check what the computer is telling us and call BS when the inevitable mistakes happen.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ah, got it, but PP doesn't really equate to an "engineering course", but rather more an Intro to Engineering Math prerequisite course where you still have to show your work longhand to prove you understand the concepts.

At Michigan, we started with Calc I. In any event, the FAA doesn't see it that way, and I agree with them -- no need to make them learn slide rules before we let them use calculators.

 

[Henning]

No one is going to do much flight planning after training. But by doing it by hand when you're learning you implant the basic concepts and that gives you the foundation to do things on the run later.

It's like all the stuff they teach you in engineering school. I might struggle to calculate the stresses in a structure by hand 20 years after leaving school, but because I used to do that, I have a good idea that this part is in tension, that part is in compression, and that lets me sanity check what the computer is telling us and call BS when the inevitable mistakes happen.

Right, and that is exactly why you need to know how to do it correctly by hand because that is when you clean the process and develop the mental gouges that get you to a 'close enough' answer quickly in your head that you can spot significant errors in electronics, or cover for their failure.

I encourage people not to consider the prep sheet/trip log planning as a tool of the flying process but rather a tool of the learning process, like working proofs in algebra or geometry, once you know it, you know it, but if you never learn it, you have a critical fault in your knowledge base which leads to problems.

In consideration of the fact that most accidents are caused by running out of damned fuel, I personally think that many people are missing the basics of critical thinking and that is the real problem with our electronic age, people just can't figure stuff out because they never had to, a box did all the figuring for them. Now if you're in an office when the box breaks, no worries. Night over long stretches of inhospitable terrain, you're not gonna do so well.

Personally I have always been confused by people's objections to learning something, never have been able to figure that out.

 

[poadeleted20]

No one is going to do much flight planning after training. But by doing it by hand when you're learning you implant the basic concepts and that gives you the foundation to do things on the run later.

I agree with the importance of that as a learning tool, but see no need to test it once they demonstrate understanding during training and are then using the other more advanced tools. It's a matter of instructor diligence during training to ensure they understand the fundamentals, not something that needs additional exercise during a practical test, especially one of 477 nm.

 

[Henning]

I agree with the importance of that as a learning tool, but see no need to test it once they demonstrate understanding during training and are then using the other more advanced tools. It's a matter of instructor diligence during training to ensure they understand the fundamentals, not something that needs additional exercise during a practical test, especially one of 477 nm.

How does the examiner know the student knows the process if they don't demonstrate it? It's the DE who signs off the ticket, not the CFI. The DE has to cover their ass for liability as well.

 

[Matthew]

Are you saying examiners are no longer testing on pilotage nav? There are still plenty of University level math courses that require longhand calculations be done.

I'm sure that engineering professors to this day and probably until the end of time will say, "Show your work!"

 

[wabower]

Whatever is going on with the GPS array is affecting numerous pilots in the south-central region. At least 4 pilots have recently reported total GPS blackouts on all units (panel and laptop) during the past few months. Some lasted for the duration of a flight, some for only a few minutes. An F-90 pilot with this problem came to the shop wondering if his antennae were properly bonded two weeks ago. Anybody know what the military (or other agency) might be doing to cause it? No apparent pattern can be identified.

 

[Henning]

Whatever is going on with the GPS array is affecting numerous pilots in the south-central region. At least 4 pilots have recently reported total GPS blackouts on all units (panel and laptop) during the past few months. Some lasted for the duration of a flight, some for only a few minutes. An F-90 pilot with this problem came to the shop wondering if his antennae were properly bonded two weeks ago. Anybody know what the military (or other agency) might be doing to cause it? No apparent pattern can be identified.

There are multiple possible issues, could just be solar flares, could be the government jamming. This is absolutely nothing new and has been an issue with GPS since day one, I lose GPS lock frequently around Norfolk. It's just a really weak signal from far away outside atmospheric shielding that is easy to corrupt.

 

[poadeleted21]

The difference is that today it's impossible to use a punch card for a computer while basic navigation skills will still work EVERY TIME with no functioning equipment except your brain.

The difference is one is a survival skill and the other an employment skill.

While you and I may consider navigational math trivial, I can assure that there are many people who do not have a full grip on it, seriously.

There's a great reason it's no longer possible.... It's pointless. But let some bureaucrat get the warm and fuzzies over a punch card and mandate them for education and they'll be right back on the market. See graphing calculators for an example. There are educate men and women sitting around doing elementary school level multiplication on slide rules in 2012. You think that is time better spent than analyzing dozens of scenarios presented in a logical way? I think being able to quickly analyze 30 different routes and look at the pros and cons of each one is far superior education than learning to calculate fuel burn on a wiz wheel.

 

[poadeleted20]

How does the examiner know the student knows the process if they don't demonstrate it? It's the DE who signs off the ticket, not the CFI. The DE has to cover their ass for liability as well.

It's not the examiner's job to determine the applicant's proficiency with a slide rule, or an abacus, or trig tables, or long division with a pencil, or the use of dividers and a protractor, only that the applicant...

Computes headings, flight time, and fuel requirements.

There is nothing in 8900.2 or the PTS which says the applicant is in any way limited on how those headings, flight time, and fuel requirements are to be computed as long as the results presented are correct. To quote the guy at FAA HQ leading the charge on this one, "The math is not what you are testing, does the applicant understand what the numbers mean and how they affect the flight he is about to take. What decisions did he make and what adjustments are to be made based on the information and computation results."

 

[Everskyward]

Whatever is going on with the GPS array is affecting numerous pilots in the south-central region. At least 4 pilots have recently reported total GPS blackouts on all units (panel and laptop) during the past few months.

It was even on the KADS ATIS a couple times last month. One time we did lose both GPSs for a short time on the ground.

 

[Henning]

It's not the examiner's job to determine the applicant's proficiency with a slide rule, or an abacus, or trig tables, or long division with a pencil, or the use of dividers and a protractor, only that the applicant...
There is nothing in 8900.2 or the PTS which says the applicant is in any way limited on how those headings, flight time, and fuel requirements are to be computed as long as the results presented are correct. To quote the guy at FAA HQ leading the charge on this one, "The math is not what you are testing, does the applicant understand what the numbers mean and how they affect the flight he is about to take. What decisions did he make and what adjustments are to be made based on the information and computation results."

Any of those computations should be able to be processed mentally with no calculator, electronic or mechanical, but it's not the arithmetic that is at the issue for me, rather demonstrating that you can derive the correct numbers to use. That means you have to demonstrate the process by filling out the trip log. If I just enter the beginning and destination into Foreflight and copy the numbers it gives, I have not shown that I understand the process that derives the numbers, just that I know how to use a piece of software.
I had a trig teacher who didn't even ask for the answers to the problem on the tests, just write down the formulas you use to solve the problem in correct succession.

 

[poadeleted20]

Any of those computations should be able to be processed mentally with no calculator, electronic or mechanical, but it's not the arithmetic that is at the issue for me, rather demonstrating that you can derive the correct numbers to use. That means you have to demonstrate the process by filling out the trip log. If I just enter the beginning and destination into Foreflight and copy the numbers it gives, I have not shown that I understand the process that derives the numbers, just that I know how to use a piece of software.
I had a trig teacher who didn't even ask for the answers to the problem on the tests, just write down the formulas you use to solve the problem in correct succession.

Tell you what, Henning -- you go get your CFI and teach it that way. Or get hired by the FAA to head up AFS-800 and change the PTS and associated policies. Until then, argue all you want, but the FAA's requirements are as I stated.

 

[jpower]

At Michigan, we started with Calc I. In any event, the FAA doesn't see it that way, and I agree with them -- no need to make them learn slide rules before we let them use calculators.

We still do!

I'm sure that engineering professors to this day and probably until the end of time will say, "Show your work!"

You betcha...on our homework in one of my engineering classes now, they give us the answers. They're at the back of the assignment. Our job is not to find the answer, but to find out how to get to the answer. That, in my opinion, is fantastic. It sure makes me learn better.

 

[Matthew]

You betcha...on our homework in one of my engineering classes now, they give us the answers. They're at the back of the assignment. Our job is not to find the answer, but to find out how to get to the answer. That, in my opinion, is fantastic. It sure makes me learn better.

Just showing an answer doesn't show you know HOW to get that answer, just like using flaps doesn't show you know WHY.

Maybe FAA really doesn't care about the HOW when it comes to the practical test - but I sure did as a student and I'm glad my CFI taught me.

 

[Henning]

Just showing an answer doesn't show you know HOW to get that answer, just like using flaps doesn't show you know WHY.

Maybe FAA really doesn't care about the HOW when it comes to the practical test - but I sure did as a student and I'm glad my CFI taught me.

Remember, the FAA system is designed to take the lowest common denominator human and turn them into a safe airline pilot, and you can be dumb as a box of rocks for that job, actually the employers prefer it, just follow the damned instructions and don't think.

 

[poadeleted20]

You betcha...on our homework in one of my engineering classes now, they give us the answers. They're at the back of the assignment. Our job is not to find the answer, but to find out how to get to the answer. That, in my opinion, is fantastic. It sure makes me learn better.

Do they also make you show your long division, or the long-hand computations to derive the trig functions if angles are involved? I sort of doubt it. And that's the FAA's point.

 

[denverpilot]

Whatever is going on with the GPS array is affecting numerous pilots in the south-central region. At least 4 pilots have recently reported total GPS blackouts on all units (panel and laptop) during the past few months. Some lasted for the duration of a flight, some for only a few minutes. An F-90 pilot with this problem came to the shop wondering if his antennae were properly bonded two weeks ago. Anybody know what the military (or other agency) might be doing to cause it? No apparent pattern can be identified.

Raytheon. Mobile jammer testing. All being done in the Southeast.

Whoever's testing around Alamagordo and Southern Colorado does NOTAMs but they're distributed only by e-mail to pilots in this area, who are signed up for such things from FAA, and they're hard to find in regular NOTAM channels. I get one at least monthly.

Don't know if Raytheon is doing the same in their test areas. But it's very likely them.

Competitive biz, GPS jammers. Military wants more and better ones. Raytheon and Lockmart ducking it out, I think.

 

[bbchien]

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-about-skills-todays-pilots?qt-most_popular=1

I suppose, to the iPAD set, this is just another old guy.....

 

[poadeleted21]

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-about-skills-todays-pilots?qt-most_popular=1

I suppose, to the iPAD set, this is just another old guy.....

Dr. B. I agree when it comes to flying the plane, I'm talking VFR flight planning... on the ground.

 

[bbchien]

Dr. B. I agree when it comes to flying the plane, I'm talking VFR flight planning... on the ground.

Hey, Bart, you and I both know that if you had to draw stick figures, you could do it....math majors can just do this stuff.

What's at stake here is MASTERY, a totally lost concept. You can pull the master in IMC, deny me all my batteries, and I will maintain control, still fly to a reasonable destination, find the VFR and land.

We found Prince Rupert with an astrolabe and a watch, for heaven's sake. We had intermittent power and the INS was totally useless. No VOR or NDB stations several hundred south of Kamchatka.....no satellites in 1974.

And yes, we did do all of our flight planning by hand, on a table in 1973. HOWEVER, that mean I had a pretty good idea what I'd have to do at each phase when the sh_t hit the 4 f_ns.

Finding Attu was never high on my list.

 

[poadeleted21]

Hey, Bart, you and I both know that if you had to draw stick figures, you could do it....math majors can just do this stuff.

What's at stake here is MASTERY, a totally lost concept. You can pull the master in IMC, deny me all my batteries, and I will maintain control, still fly to a reasonable destination, find the VFR and land.

We found Prince Rupert with an astrolabe and a watch, for heaven's sake. We had intermittent power and the INS was totally useless. No VOR or NDB stations several hundred south of Kamchatka.....no satellites in 1974.

And yes, we did do all of our flight planning by hand, on a table in 1973. HOWEVER, that mean I had a pretty good idea what I'd have to do at each phase when the sh_t hit the 4 f_ns.

Finding Attu was never high on my list.

Do you see some sort of benefit in having a student calculate fuel burn using an E6B over say spending that time analyzing multiple flight scenarios on the Jeppesen flight planner? I don't. You don't have to know how to do multiplication on a slide rule to understand multiplication. And that is my point. I agree all the concepts need to be understood, if I was a teacher I could ask 2 questions and know instantly if the student understood, if he didn't we could pull out the ruler and go back to the basics if need be. But IMHO is training for the lowest common denominator.

 

[bbchien]

And that is why the requirement is there, and the DPE usually says, "Okay, let's move on" once he see that the student "gets it". But if the CFI has never taught the manual method, the DPE invariably sees that the underpinings are not there.

We've had a few pinks right at that point.

 

[N801BH]

.... Raytheon and Lockmart ducking it out, I think.

All I can picture is the AFLAC duck.......

 

[jpower]

Just showing an answer doesn't show you know HOW to get that answer, just like using flaps doesn't show you know WHY.

Maybe FAA really doesn't care about the HOW when it comes to the practical test - but I sure did as a student and I'm glad my CFI taught me.

Precisely! My professor is all about WHY you got the answer you did, which is exactly how he should be.

Do they also make you show your long division, or the long-hand computations to derive the trig functions if angles are involved? I sort of doubt it. And that's the FAA's point.

Haha...nope. Not at all. They do on our math exams, but not on engineering. Engineering is tougher stuff but much more reasonable. You forget a formula? Sure, I'll tell you as long as you can describe what you're looking for well enough. Math exams? yeahhhhh not so much.

 

[Henning]

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-about-skills-todays-pilots?qt-most_popular=1

I suppose, to the iPAD set, this is just another old guy.....

He's right, and the answer is redundancy in position information from the new supercritical optical gyro driven INS systems that are supposed to be cheap to make, not all that up on it, just things in the mill. Thing is for IMC and IFR you need infrastructure dependent reference or a very complex gyro system for guidance. As long as you remain VMC the CFIT issues drop off in numbers drastically.

The real problem at the moment is off airway direct routing that R-NAV allows and that it is GPS dependent, not in the way it is displayed, you can always install redundant displays of the information, what you don't have is redundant information for special awareness around terrain should GPS fail. At least if you're on an airway when you have external guidance failure you can still continue to fly a surveyed route by DST procedure.

Another potential solution is to build a secondary VOR based R-NAV guidance system, a modernized KNS-80 outputting position to the mapping and display system same as a GPS. Shouldn't be impossible to build a coupler to go between a Garmin pair to serve as the controller and processor to operate and analyze the two radios and provide the same output datum referenced position information as GPS does. Luckily there are still plenty of ILSs available and that service is already in the box.

Should plug right into the G-500/600/1000... Mapping and display drives with that info. Should be $2500