Obsolete knowledge

You can fix the pilot shortage by paying chumps like me my current career salary while I'm building hours. That ain't happenin'. :D
 
RalphInCA said:
Here's another thing I am pondering:

If we got rid of all the requirements to learn things "the old way" (since much of the "old way" has been obsoleted by new technology), making it easier to get private pilots license, would that translate into more people actually continuing on to get the license - reducing the 80% dropout rate - and increase the active pilot population?

Would this also mean more professional/commercial pilots, therefore reducing the pilot shortage?
Click to expand...

Hell, no.

The reason for the pilot shortage is low pay and high experience requirements.

You could give away licenses in Cracker Jack boxes and you still wouldn't solve the problem.

You're also starting from an assumption that isn't correct. GIGO.
 
For crying out loud! It's not about making the license easier to get, it's about making flying safer! As long as you have to translate something, there will always be a risk of error, no matter how good you are at reading the code.

I've got no problem reading METARs, but Jesus, trying to read Area Forecasts and Sigmets, when they're using a bunch of gibberish to describe the area affected is just silly.

I am constantly amazed at the tendency for pilots to take the position that the 'old way is the best way', and 'if it works, don't fix it'.
 
Rykymus said:
For crying out loud! It's not about making the license easier to get, it's about making flying safer! As long as you have to translate something, there will always be a risk of error, no matter how good you are at reading the code.

I've got no problem reading METARs, but Jesus, trying to read Area Forecasts and Sigmets, when they're using a bunch of gibberish to describe the area affected is just silly.

I am constantly amazed at the tendency for pilots to take the position that the 'old way is the best way', and 'if it works, don't fix it'.
Click to expand...

If you try to fix it you WILL break it. Guaranteed.

So, only fix real problems with honest and significant benefits to being fixed.
 
I would likely be in some trouble if every instrument in the aircraft failed except the ADF. Having said that, they are useful for finding marker beacons if that's what you've got.

If every instrument in the aircraft failed but a single VOR, a compass, and an altimeter, I still have a darned good chance. If they all failed but an ADF and an altimeter, I'm immediately declaring an emergency and looking for options. I'd really probably declare in both cases, but the first one I'd put my odds of survival with no help at "very high". With the ADF, I think I can get real close, if not get it, but dang I'm going to be sweating.

If I was king Stevie of ATC today, this is how a METAR would read shorthand, if I needed to put it in a small corner of a display:

now:
KFCM 122121Z 08006KT 5SM -RA BKN055 OVC070 13/06 A3024 RMK AO2 RAB09 P0000 T01280056

future:
KFCM 421pmCST 080@6KT 5SM LT RN BKN 5,500 OVC 7,000 13/06 A3024 MVFR RMK rain bgn 4:09pm, something something something something(???)

Dang I guess my new version would be very similar. Still I'm king and that's what's up.
 
RalphInCA said:
Here's another thing I am pondering:

If we got rid of all the requirements to learn things "the old way" (since much of the "old way" has been obsoleted by new technology), making it easier to get private pilots license, would that translate into more people actually continuing on to get the license - reducing the 80% dropout rate - and increase the active pilot population?

Would this also mean more professional/commercial pilots, therefore reducing the pilot shortage?
Click to expand...

Making the knowledge requirements easier is not going to make more people want to get their license. Lets face reality, most people are not going to spend upwards of 10K just to get a PPL. especially when they learn that only gets them a license. Then to actually use the license, they have to spend a couple hundred dollars a pop just to go fly. And most middle class families don't have or can't really justify buying their own plane, double that when they learn the cost of just owning.

I'll agree some of the things we have to know are outdated, but some of them are definitely still needed. But if some of the new pilots want to make their way to the airlines one day and they can't do simple W&B, flight planning, etc. They are going to have a rough time just getting through the airlines training class if they make it through the interview.
 
jordane93 said:
Yea but at the expense of dumbing down the knowledge?
Click to expand...
I am not saying that we should dumb down the knowledge... I am saying that we should make the knowledge/skills required easier to get, or easier to understand.
 
RalphInCA said:
I am not saying that we should dumb down the knowledge... I am saying that we should make the knowledge/skills required easier to get, or easier to understand.
Click to expand...
Screw that! There's already enough incompetent pilots in the aviation community, and you want add more dumbasses to the pool by lowering the learning standards and making things easier? :rolleyes:
 
TommyG said:
Making the knowledge requirements easier is not going to make more people want to get their license. Lets face reality, most people are not going to spend upwards of 10K just to get a PPL. especially when they learn that only gets them a license. Then to actually use the license, they have to spend a couple hundred dollars a pop just to go fly. And most middle class families don't have or can't really justify buying their own plane, double that when they learn the cost of just owning.

I'll agree some of the things we have to know are outdated, but some of them are definitely still needed. But if some of the new pilots want to make their way to the airlines one day and they can't do simple W&B, flight planning, etc. They are going to have a rough time just getting through the airlines training class if they make it through the interview.
Click to expand...

I agree that people headed towards the airline should have in-depth knowledge.

But not everybody who starts to fly is headed towards the airlines.

Perhaps by using technology we can decrease training time which would decrease training cost.

Yes, airplanes are always going to be expensive but decreasing training costs might bring more people into the fold.

Boats and sports cars are pretty expensive, and have a little real world practical utility, but they seem to be selling pretty well. One reason may be there are very few barriers to entry into that passion.

I know this is just reducing one barrier to entry, but producing any barrier should help with the pilot population.
 
azblackbird said:
Screw that! There's already enough incompetent pilots in the aviation community, and you want add more dumbasses to the pool by lowering the learning standards and making things easier? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You misunderstand completely blackbird. I'm not saying that we should lower standards and allow dangerous pilots to fly.

What I am saying is that we should use technology to make flying safely - easier. Or, to say it another way: make it easier to fly safely.
 
azblackbird said:
Flying is safe for the most part, and the technology to make it even safer is improving everyday. What more do you want? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I agree that flying is fairly safe, and getting safer, but I'd also like to maintain this level of safety while reducing barriers to entry.
 
azblackbird said:
Feel free to elaborate... I'd like to hear from you on what you would like to see changed or improved upon.
Click to expand...

We've already discussed in this thread eliminating confusing weather reporting systems In favor of plain text, easy to understand systems.

How about... we figure out a way to -- SAFELY -- incorporate the power and ease of use of iPad technology and ForeFlight EFBs early in the training and eliminate the difficult and laborious process of XC planning? (This may require further development of iPad/EFB technology.)

How about... revamping aircraft certification rules and fixing liability exposure so that -- SAFE -- easy to fly aircraft could be built at reasonable (I.e. Honda Accord level) prices?

How about... We eliminate stupid "homeland security" barriers to local airports and make them welcoming community centers? (I know this does not lower costs, but it does lower barriers to entry.)

How about... We shoot all fuddy duddy old grumpy CFIs that insist on teaching flying using hard to understand concepts and tools (like E6Bs) because "that's the way I learned, and new pilots gotta pay their dues!"

How about... we increase CFI pay and improve working conditions so that the best and most effective TEACHERS stay in the profession, eliminating student drops due to ineffective teaching?

How about... We improve flight schools and small airplane FBOs so that we don't lose so many current and POTENTIAL to business incompetence. (FBOs focused on corporate aviation already do this pretty well, we need the same quality on the little airplane side of things.)

None of the above will be easy.
 
jordane93 said:
IIRC correctly the G1000 has the option of a decoded when you pull up the airport info on the MFD. I know on the Perspective you are able to do that. Normally I just hit the cursor on the MFD, slide the cursor over to the airport weather flag and read the raw format. To each their own. I know I can read a raw METAR just as fast as a decoded one so normally I'll just read the raw version.
Click to expand...

My GRT MFD translates most of the metar to readable format.

On the ADF side. There are (were) Canadian IFR routes (green) defined by ADF. Actually had to fly a couple one including an approach.
 
jordane93 said:
Yea but at the expense of dumbing down the knowledge?
Click to expand...
Applying some common sense isn't dumbing it down. Nobody should have to learn that BR==mist. They saved two whole characters with that ridiculousness. We have bandwidth for vowels these days.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Same. Somehow I find it faster to read raw than to read translated.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Much faster to look at a series of METARs and get a sense of the trends when they are in the raw un-translated format.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
exncsurfer said:
Applying some common sense isn't dumbing it down. Nobody should have to learn that BR==mist. They saved two whole characters with that ridiculousness. We have bandwidth for vowels these days.
Click to expand...
See the post where someone equates doing a manual weight and balance to aeronautical engineering. Just plug the numbers into an app and get a result. We don't have to learn why we do weight and balance right?
 
Actually, speaking of technology, before long the airplanes will be able to fly themselves (probably better than we can) without our feeble attempts to decode weather, keep our stick and rudder skills sharp, etc., etc. This route may eliminate the pilot shortage :). We wouldn't have to bump paying passengers to haul a crew somewhere! The crew would be part of the airplane. :)
 
ChemGuy said:
Do they still chart/list the AM towers so you could home in on them with the ol' ADF?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen an official chart in years. I just do a Google search for the AM stations in a given place then make my own lists.
My grandson told his teacher (when asked what I do) "He trains airplanes to find Rock and Roll music."
Pretty accurate description.
I have no idea what I will do when all the ADF sets finally get pulled from the airplanes.
 
Worrying about lead-and-lag on compass turns. I just don't care, it doesn't come up, and if it does, I'll deal with it - likely I'll have bigger fish to fry in that situation, and won't be sparing cycles for it.

Deep dive into weather guessing - it made more sense 40 years ago, with fewer reporting/sampling points, and sketchier forecasting. I am not/not a meterologist, I'm unlikely to do a better job prognisticating than the real thing, and the quality is so much better now than when I began flying. I look at the big picture, read the forecasts, and launch. Or not.
 
I have given this question some thought.... But before listing my pet items, I have to split the METAR question: I am against both the "raw" and "decoded" METAR formats. The RAW format is too obtuse and is positional inside words. However, the way METAR - and more so TAF - are decoded is terrible. It's very verbose and cannot fit into area where raw TAF can fit (e.g. a tooltip). This by itself requires additional UX actions, raising the task load. You'd think it were obvious, but nope. I suspect people who like "decoded" TAF only ever read it on their desktops, not in flight. Or maybe the like to buy their heads in their laps while autopilot does the flying. Which is completely legitimate, I suppose.

Anyway, long story short, my preference would be another standard METAR/TAF format that is optimized for readability, but is not too verbose. Maybe the good old TAF with some commas sprinkled around for starters and a few abbreviations somewhat expanded with lowercase letters.

Getting back to lost technologies:

- VOR is dead. Well, it's still around but might as well consider it dead at this point. Interestingly, ADF is alive, thanks for ICAO. One thing about VOR though, it's heavily used for position reporting, even if the transmitter itself is off.

- EFAS is dead. I'm _very_ sorry to report it, but it's time to give up.

- Not being a pro, I have never, ever, used an SD. Not sure if they are still a thing.

Not really that many technologies are gone. I'm glad the spark advance is, but there's no dislodging carburation, icing and all.
 
Sundancer said:
Worrying about lead-and-lag on compass turns. I just don't care, it doesn't come up, and if it does, I'll deal with it - likely I'll have bigger fish to fry in that situation, and won't be sparing cycles for it.

Deep dive into weather guessing - it made more sense 40 years ago, with fewer reporting/sampling points, and sketchier forecasting. I am not/not a meterologist, I'm unlikely to do a better job prognisticating than the real thing, and the quality is so much better now than when I began flying. I look at the big picture, read the forecasts, and launch. Or not.
Click to expand...

I took one flight that would have killed you.

The HSI failed in the clouds, and believe me, those compass turning errors were important for getting safely home.

But I guess all technology is perfect, so there is no need to learn all that hard stuff.

Oh, and the HSI took the GPS with it. Real failures aren't like you assume. That the GPS "shouldn't" depend on heading doesn't mean Garmin got that memo.
 
Last edited:
Good God! You survived a HSI failure? I'd have probably killed myself, using the turn-and-bank thingy or the AH. . .let's see, a two minute turn for 360. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Good God! You survived a HSI failure? I'd have probably killed myself, using the turn-and-bank thingy or the AH. . .let's see, a two minute turn for 360. . .
Click to expand...
TC doesn't do much good in turbulence, by itself.

There is a reason you SHOULD understand compass errors.

So, let's not be stupid and say all that learnin' stuff is for suckers 'cause of magic technology.

When you are in the clouds, you care about three things -- altitude, heading, and airspeed. Your magnetic compass gives you one of those. Your TC does not.
 
cowman said:
I have an ADF in my panel and occasionally I turn it on and tune it into a beacon just for heck of it. As I watch the needle either not lock onto the signal at all or bounce back and forth within a 15 degree margin of error I think thank god I don't have to rely on something like this to find my way around.

And yet at one time in history this was revolutionary.... wow.
Click to expand...

When all else fails it will still get you home. ;)
 
MAKG1 said:
I guess you'll next complain to the scientific community that lead shouldn't be abbreviated Pb or gold Au.
Click to expand...
...for a moment there I was worried this thread would start debating Imperial vs Metric! seemed like it started skirting that territory

RalphInCA said:
making it easier to get private pilots license
Click to expand...
I can appreciate the intent in this... the other threads about Mooney and Cirrus saving GA, and even the $992K Cirrus brought up GA and getting new pilots involved. I think rather than "easier" though there should be less focus on memorization and rote knowledge (which I think is what you meant) but on aeronautical decision making and handling serious emergencies... IE, when your G1000 craps out in the clouds don't panic and spin... do X, Y, and Z, and if that fails pull the red handle. I'm serious... many people are taught abstract concepts of emergencies but never really practice it.. most of their engine out practice is safely in a pattern and their instrument failures are done with the safety of a CFI, so you don't get that real "tunnel vision" that would happen in real life during a panic. I think that might make learning to get your PPL not only safer, but ultimately funner. People appreciate a challenge, and especially millennials appreciate gamification..

RalphInCA said:
would that translate into more people actually continuing on to get the license - reducing the 80% dropout rate - and increase the active pilot population?
Click to expand...
I'm convinced the drop out rate is because of these factors, in descending order:
1.) ran out of money
2.) ran out of time, trying to make the money
3.) couldn't commit to a schedule of 2-4 flights per week, either due to CFI scheduling or again money and time
4.) didn't find a CFI that was a good fit, assumed all CFIs are the same, and gave up
5.) nobody supported them... HS friends thought they were a geek or dork and friends family said it was dangers (hopefully this rarely happens, but the aviation club in my HS was not necessarily the "cool kid" hang out!)

CT4ME said:
Sorry, Metars were never meant to be an efficient form of communication. They were a result of limited bandwidth on old teletypes.
Click to expand...
Funny... the QWERTY keyboard feels so nice and natural to us but I've been told that originally that was actually designed to be irritating to force slow typing and to not jam up early typewriters..
 
Definitley, let' not be stupid and say that then, especially since I didn't say that. And if a turn coordinator or AH is "magic technology" for you, you go back a lot further than I do.

Compass error is real, knowledge of it has some value, but not high enough on my priority list to give it a lot of attention. YMMV. I'm reasonably confident I can deal with a DG or HSI failure with the tools at hand. . .
 
MAKG1 said:
There is a reason you SHOULD understand compass errors.
Click to expand...
Funny, a few weeks ago I took some friends flying and we were doing some turns over the desert (trying to find the "epic" SoCal flower bloom that wasn't) and during the turns one off them noticed that the compass was not moving in an intuitive manner..

"is your compass broken?" they asked, I replied with "that thing?!, I have no idea, I use my iPad" - JK! It was actually a fun exercise to try and explain why it was happening
 
MAKG1 said:
TC doesn't do much good in turbulence, by itself.

There is a reason you SHOULD understand compass errors.

So, let's not be stupid and say all that learnin' stuff is for suckers 'cause of magic technology.

When you are in the clouds, you care about three things -- altitude, heading, and airspeed. Your magnetic compass gives you one of those. Your TC does not.
Click to expand...

When I'm in the clouds I care about attitude a lot, as well. Yeah, heading matters. And after I roll out of a turn I can look at the compass and see how well I counted the seconds. Worked for me. . .
 
Tantalum said:
I'm convinced the drop out rate is because of these factors, in descending order:
1.) ran out of money
2.) ran out of time, trying to make the money
3.) couldn't commit to a schedule of 2-4 flights per week, either due to CFI scheduling or again money and time
4.) didn't find a CFI that was a good fit, assumed all CFIs are the same, and gave up
5.) nobody supported them... HS friends thought they were a geek or dork and friends family said it was dangers (hopefully this rarely happens, but the aviation club in my HS was not necessarily the "cool kid" hang out!)
Click to expand...

Just curious, are you a CFI?
 
GRG55 said:
When all else fails it will still get you home. ;)
Click to expand...
True, and if my panel mount GPS, ipad, iphone, and VOR reciever all die on me in the same flight and there happens to be an NDB in range I will most certainly use it.
 
dmspilot said:
Just curious, are you a CFI?
Click to expand...
lol no, but oddly enough just about all of my flying friends are (or where at some point). But people I've known or met who said "yeah I took some lessons but ..." always seemed to come back to time or money, and sometimes a personnel fit. Not having enough money up front is discouraging to a lot, because every time you "get back into flying" you have to do all this rework, and I think that's the part that discourages folks to not finish
 
cowman said:
True, and if my panel mount GPS, ipad, iphone, and VOR reciever all die on me in the same flight and there happens to be an NDB in range I will most certainly use it.
Click to expand...

Your GPS, iPad and iPhone are NOT redundant. They all depend on the same source.
Where I live VORs are gradually being decommissioned.
I have to deal with the ADS-B thing shortly and plan to do a major radio stack upgrade at that time. My ADF is staying. ;)
 
Tantalum said:
lol no, but oddly enough just about all of my flying friends are (or where at some point). But people I've known or met who said "yeah I took some lessons but ..." always seemed to come back to time or money, and sometimes a personnel fit. Not having enough money up front is discouraging to a lot, because every time you "get back into flying" you have to do all this rework, and I think that's the part that discourages folks to not finish
Click to expand...

The perception I've gotten from instructing is a little bit different. If the cost is an issue they generally don't start in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top