Pilot knowledge

chemgeek said:
As a career college educator, I embrace any technology that can enhance learning and productivity. I'm not bothered by the adoption of EFBs for navigation and flight planning to the exclusion of paper charts and publications. But you do need to know how to use electronic media to find and use the information you need (and are required to have) to fly safely.

I'm not worried about my EFB dying and leaving me powerless without my paper charts (which I don't carry). My primary EFB is on my tablet. I have a backup, if needed on my phone. If those fail, my spouse also has a copy of the EFB on her phone. If that fails, I have enough information to fly an IFR approach on either my portable or panel GPS. I think I'm covered.

This all reminds me of the arguments about allowing calculators in classes, or making students hand-calculate statistics instead of using more powerful analysis tools. Technology allows one to go deeper and faster into topics, but it doesn't relieve the need for understanding. Just the reverse: it demands more understanding, because with a bigger shovel, you can dig yourself a bigger hole dumber and faster.

What does concern me is student pilots who are so anxiety-ridden about a cross-country flight that they can't do it without "pre-flying" the route on Google Earth. This means that they do not know or are not confident enough about how to use a navigation chart, electronic or otherwise, to match up with the real world. If you have to make an in-flight diversion due to weather, fuel consumption, or an emergency, you won't have time to "pre-fly" your new route and relieve your performance anxiety. You have to know how to dial up a new route in your fancy boxes, or look out the window.
Click to expand...
I was 100% with you until the part about pre flying a route in a sim or Google earth. There is a lot for a new pilot to keep track of and being able to freeze frame and think about how their charts match up with the views (multiple, as they can cycle through different wx and day/nigh) they see out the window is a very useful tool.

Recognizing airports and other features from the sky is not an emergent property of book learning. Time on a laptop is significantly cheaper than in a big smashed at 5500 feet.
 
Dave Palacios said:
By the way what is the inverted "C" mean ?, I know i can check the back panel of the chart (and i will, when i figure out how to bring it up in foreflight!).
Click to expand...
In ForeFlight, click on the "Documents" button on the bottom of the screen. On mine, I have downloaded the FARS Part 61 and 91, the ACS for private pilot, and the chart legends for IFR Low and VFR. (But I haven't located an inverted C.)
 
Ed Haywood said:
Your question is still based on a false premise. ForeFlight does not "interpret" sectional information to come up with their own charting product. The FAA provides sectional charts in vector form. ForeFlight displays them. Same as sectional charts in raster form. Neither view is more official than the other, and neither view is more or less official than a big sheet of paper with a raster chart printed on it.

That is why there are so many EFB apps: FF, Garmin Pilot, iFly, Avare, FlyQ, etc. All they are doing is dumping FAA-provided data on the screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am fully aware that all apps are displaying the same geo tiff files provided by the FAA. That was not the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is that Foreflight makes it unnecessary to know how to read and interpret the information under the airport boxes, like "RP", "*L", the inverted-C etc..., or how to read the runway lighting information etc.. in the Chart Supplement. Is that a still a necessary skill? The responses seem to indicate that it is not a relevant skill anymore. I am fine with that - I was just trying to get a collective feel from others.
 
As long as it's being tested, it is a "relevant" skill, in that you don't get to do pilot stuff if you don't pass the tests.
 
In 13 years of flying, I have never once said "Oh crap! I need my sectional!"
I think we are at the point that reliance on an EFB is the world we live in and it is a safe bet they are not all going to crap out.
I have it on good authority that there are 121 operations where it is required to fly.
 
geezer said:
Geezer view here!


There were a few pilots who preferred ADF, but they had airline approved receivers, and used 50,000 watt commercial stations for interstate flights. One of these was a Bonanza with factory long range tanks, plus tip tanks, plus a suitable relief bottle. He had a second home and business interests in Miami, but home was Washington DC. He flew solo, non stop, great circle, from Miami to WTOP coming home. Going, a Miami station was used. The ADF had the station locked in on the ground before he had completed his engine checks. His wife packed the food for the southbound trip, a restaurant packed the northbound.
Click to expand...
I think you still may be able to do that now? Up until the 90s still, maybe still today, US AM radio frequency allocations included some "clear channels" that were frequencies only allocated to either a single station in the east and one in the west, or a single station nationwide. I was told by the engineer at one of the stations that used to consult for that this was for civil defense purposes, but a little research on google tells me that clear channels pre-date WW2, and that they still exist today.

There's so much electrical noise around these days that I don't know if it would work, but MF radio signals in the KW range can carry a pretty good distance, especially at night.

 
The clear channel system was put in place before 1930, with a power limit of 500,000 watts. The Crosley broadcasting Company received a temporary permit for a Million watts, but the undesirable effects of so much power at that frequency resulted in the license reduced to half a Million. I believe the test transmitter was WCKY in Covington Kentucky. No matter where you lived, you could receive those stations, which had a high quality news content.

This is provided without Google or AI. My Dad worked for Crosley in the large transmitter factory, and installed the equipment at the customer locations.

WW 2, I believe that the Civil Defense had the power to order all the clear channel stations to change to one of just 2 frequencies to produce a signal that was useful for defense related emergency messages, but unusable for ADF tracking to a city. There were triangular emblems on the radio dials at those frequencies.
 
I think this starts to eventually stray into personal preference/emphasis areas. For me that little bit of info next to an airport on a sectional is fundamental and basic stuff. I pretty much use that to find the CTAF/METARs/ATIS on every flight I make to another airport. I also think that since there's no real difference between how that's presented on a paper sectional or the nearly identical sectional on every EFB it's something every pilot should know since it will be part of whatever tool they're using.

OTOH outside of training I NEVER look at the coded METAR or TAF info.. I can read it, I just find it easier to read decoded and I've always wondered why we continue to present the information that way. But then I've also heard pilots say they find it faster to read the coded versions.

I guess the best way to go here is to make all new students learn all this stuff for the test but maybe we don't need to worry about it for flight reviews as long as the pilot in question can still get the correct answer by some means.

On another tangent- I recently became aware that its been over a decade since I passed my private checkride. I think right around that time was when Foreflight was becoming common but there was still a great deal of skeptacism about it. I showed up to my checkride with both my iPad and all the paper chart/E6B stuff fully prepared to use either. The examiner told me to use whatever I'd be using when I was on my own so I used ForeFlight. When I did my instrument around 4-5 years later using ForeFlight was pretty much expected but noses were turned up at my electronic logbook. Today as I'm working on my CPL ForeFlight and electronic logbooks are the norm.
Likewise I remember back a decade ago on POA if you brought up ForeFlight there would always be someone commenting on how unreliable an iPad was and just agast at pilots relyng on them. And while I think the current attidue is(wisely) that one should have some form of backup, I don't see those kinds of posts much anymore. So... attitudes evolve. Also in over a decade of flying I've had certified panel avionics fail WAY more often than my iPad- just sayin'.
 
Hengelo said:
As long as it's being tested, it is a "relevant" skill, in that you don't get to do pilot stuff if you don't pass the tests.
Click to expand...

Um, no. If the test writer must provide a visual image of something for a test question, that image must be validated. One cannot validate an image they don’t control.

Think about the “what distance is it” questions on the scaled maps. The test writer provides you with the map AND distance scale in the image. If you just whip out your protractor and read the number on it’s scale, you find that answer is not available. If you use the scale provided in the image, you find the correct answer.

Because the test provided cannot validate every single protractor that could be used, they instead give you the guidance “using the information provided”.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Private Pilot ACS when it comes to cross-country planning and see what it says.
 
geezer said:
The clear channel system was put in place before 1930, with a power limit of 500,000 watts. The Crosley broadcasting Company received a temporary permit for a Million watts, but the undesirable effects of so much power at that frequency resulted in the license reduced to half a Million. I believe the test transmitter was WCKY in Covington Kentucky. No matter where you lived, you could receive those stations, which had a high quality news content.

This is provided without Google or AI. My Dad worked for Crosley in the large transmitter factory, and installed the equipment at the customer locations.

WW 2, I believe that the Civil Defense had the power to order all the clear channel stations to change to one of just 2 frequencies to produce a signal that was useful for defense related emergency messages, but unusable for ADF tracking to a city. There were triangular emblems on the radio dials at those frequencies.
Click to expand...
I heard it on the X.
Texas radio with the big beat (The WASP).
 
sarangan said:
The point I was trying to make is that Foreflight makes it unnecessary to know how to read and interpret the information under the airport boxes, like "RP", "*L", the inverted-C etc..., or how to read the runway lighting information etc.. in the Chart Supplement.
Click to expand...

Those are items I review during flight planning, and relevant info goes onto my kneeboard. There's NO reason to worry at all about the device "failing" during flight planning, so why would I use paper when the electronic device is faster and better?

My EFB (I use iFly, not FF) gives me much more information than is available in the sectional airport box just by tapping the airport. The app essentially pulls up all I can get from the supplement, and more. The chart box, for example, only tells me about the longest runway, whereas if I simply tap on it I see all runways, their lengths, their surface conditions, etc. The supplement won't list NOTAMS, but the EFB will. I can also zoom in and see a satellite pic (try doing that with paper).
 
TCABM said:
Um, no. If the test writer must provide a visual image of something for a test question, that image must be validated. One cannot validate an image they don’t control.

Think about the “what distance is it” questions on the scaled maps. The test writer provides you with the map AND distance scale in the image. If you just whip out your protractor and read the number on it’s scale, you find that answer is not available. If you use the scale provided in the image, you find the correct answer.

Because the test provided cannot validate every single protractor that could be used, they instead give you the guidance “using the information provided”.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Private Pilot ACS when it comes to cross-country planning and see what it says.
Click to expand...
I have no argument with you about the scale on the test materials, but other than that I have no idea what you are saying. I think I said you have to learn the material on the test, even if it is not of real-world use.
 
I learned with paper, but I hate to tell you, paper charts are going the way of the printed Chart Users Guide (if you didn't know, the FAA is no longer printing them, digital only).

For now, I'm a firm believer that flight schools should start you off with a Sectional, plotter and E6B to learn the basics. The mind will hang onto the problem solving so some future date there's a glitch in ForeFlight (or whatever EFB) you may very well realize there is an issue with the number FF is showing. (Wrong entry or glitch doesn't matter.) After some training with the charts, then move them on to an EFB for the rest of their flight, that *IS* what they are going to fly with in the future. And I'll go one step further, CFIs should be showing them how to fly with both the Sectional AND the Digital Map in the EFB (Aeronautical Layer in FF). I (and non of the pilots I know - pro and not) have not used the Sectional layer in a long long time. Occasionally I'll look up the name of a mountain or river on the Sectional since FF does not have a lot of that kind of data.

And yes, you need a second source, be it paper or a second device with your EFB. CFIs also need to frequently kill the GPS/ADS-B source for that "now what do you do" situation. But for those that say you shouldn't use an EFB and you MUST use Charts, well for you, I'm saying you need to go back and start flying with Road Maps and you can't use Sectionals. If you're saying the current/future *proven* charting of aviation is not acceptable, then the same holds for you. :D You go one tech level backwards, which would be pre Sectional.
 
Mohamed and the Mountain. The best education uses the tools the students are most comfortable with.

For the grey hairs, that may be paper, pencil and a weather rock.
For the youngsters, it's probably tick tock and an iPad.

None of them has any magic bean sauce over the other.
 
Next you are going to tell me students don't walk down to the FSS building across the ramp to get their in-person weather briefing and file their flight plan anymore.
 
M20K said:
I learned with paper, but I hate to tell you, paper charts are going the way of the printed Chart Users Guide (if you didn't know, the FAA is no longer printing them, digital only).
Click to expand...
The sectionals are still displayed on the EFB. A pilot should know how to interpret the symbology.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
The sections are still displayed on the EFB. A pilot should know how to interpret the symbology.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! They're going to be asked about it for sure on the Written and the Checkride.
 
Let's be honest, there's a fair amount of gatekeeping in aviation knowledge requirements. Knowing how to decode METARs does not make safe pilots. There is literally nowhere that METARs are delivered to the pilot that cannot be decoded.

There's enough other material to master to be a good pilot that if someone can't decode a metar on a flight review I'm not going to have a fit. If they can find the CTAF from a EFB they're comfortable with, I'm fine with that; ForeFlight gets its data from the FAA so as far as I'm concerned it's all good. If they miss the RP18 on the chart, I'm going to expect them to have gleaned that information from the EFB. If not, we're going to spend some time with flight planning and briefing for an arrival.
 
M20K said:
I learned with paper, but I hate to tell you, paper charts are going the way of the printed Chart Users Guide (if you didn't know, the FAA is no longer printing them, digital only).
Click to expand...

For the n-th time, I have no idea why this thread diverged into "paper" vs "digital". No one was advocating for paper charts. I have not used paper in nearly 20 years. I'll leave it at that...
 
I recall Listening to WCKY on my ADF. The played “The Little Records with the Big Holes and the Big Records with the Little Holes”. As my home base was WPAFB, once I found Cincinnati, it was easy to find home, even before I-75.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Where does Foreflight get its information, and is it an equivalent “official source?” If Foreflight goes down, and they can’t read coded METARs and TAFs, will they fly anyway? Is there something they’re actually missing if they don’t have the underlying knowledge?

Where I see it is in the performance apps…the overwhelming majority of times it doesn’t make a difference whether or not they understand the ground rules of the AFM performance section, but the assumptions that many pilots make could get them killed if they stray from the center of the performance planning envelope.

Quite frankly, long before Foreflight and its equivalents, those are topics that many pilots only learned because they were forced to, and only learned as much as they were forced to. So I’m not entirely sure that we’re “losing” anything.
Click to expand...
I recall an instance where a pilot checked Foreflight for TFRs and noted he was good to go with his planned flight. He ended up violating a TFR. His defense was he checked Foreflight. Foreflight said they get their data from FAA. FAA admitted they sent bad info to Foreflight. Pilot still got sanctioned for violating the TFR because Foreflight is not an approved source and if the pilot had called Flight Service, he would have gotten the correct data.
 
Witmo said:
I recall an instance where a pilot checked Foreflight for TFRs and noted he was good to go with his planned flight. He ended up violating a TFR. His defense was he checked Foreflight. Foreflight said they get their data from FAA. FAA admitted they sent bad info to Foreflight. Pilot still got sanctioned for violating the TFR because Foreflight is not an approved source and if the pilot had called Flight Service, he would have gotten the correct data.
Click to expand...
Please cite. That does not sound consistent with current enforcement policy.
 
sarangan said:
For the n-th time, I have no idea why this thread diverged into "paper" vs "digital". No one was advocating for paper charts. I have not used paper in nearly 20 years. I'll leave it at that...
Click to expand...
Ummm... Maybe because it is in the first sentence of the original post. :D

"...I’m looking for some feedback on a trend I’ve been noticing lately. Increasingly, students seem to be relying on ForeFlight as their only source of navigational information, and many have very limited familiarity with the underlying FAA publications - sectional charts, the Chart Supplement, Aviation Weather Service products, and so on..."
 
Witmo said:
Pilot still got sanctioned for violating the TFR because Foreflight is not an approved source
Click to expand...
Foreflight is an approved device to get the information, whomever told you that it wasn't is incorrect. It is no different than using your computer or phone.

In the case you sited, I'd be very interested to hear if the person appealed and if so, I would guess he was cleared. If the FAA sent out bogus information, the pilot would have still gotten the bad info if he called a Briefer. On a side note, I just listened to a recap of the Matt Burrows vs. FAA case. The FAA was blatantly wrong in so many ways, which is apparently becoming a common thing. In the Burrows case, he ultimately was cleared and I think he even got money back from the FAA for the legal fees. (At least some of the fees.)
 
M20K said:
Ummm... Maybe because it is in the first sentence of the original post. :D

"...I’m looking for some feedback on a trend I’ve been noticing lately. Increasingly, students seem to be relying on ForeFlight as their only source of navigational information, and many have very limited familiarity with the underlying FAA publications - sectional charts, the Chart Supplement, Aviation Weather Service products, and so on..."
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, that mentioning "sectional charts" somehow got interpreted as "paper charts" and foreflight as "electronic". That was not the intent - not the best choice of words on my part.
 
sarangan said:
I get what you are saying, that mentioning "sectional charts" somehow got interpreted as "paper charts" and foreflight as "electronic". That was not the intent - not the best choice of words on my part.
Click to expand...
I and others may have misinterpreted. I took the "publications - sectional charts..." to mean "printed" charts. So what did you mean?

More along the lines of FF's Aeronautical layer vs the Sectional that's also available on FF and other EFBs? I'm a big fan of the Aviation layer and see it as the next generation of aeronautical "publications" and as an improved replacement of the Sectional. It was great in its day, but if you fly into unfamiliar congested airspace, it is a ROYAL pain. As for the Chart Supplement, are you aware there is a link on the FF Airport page that takes you to the Chart Supplement (A/FD) page for that airport. It is on the Info tab. As for all of the other documents, which a moving to be digital only, they are in the Documents page under FAA. So all the stuff is there and frequently used by FF (and I'm assuming other EFBs) Users. You just may not see them pulling out one of the printed books we used to have to carry around, but the info is available right there in FF.
 
M20K said:
I and others may have misinterpreted. I took the "publications - sectional charts..." to mean "printed" charts. So what did you mean?
Click to expand...
The FAA’s charts (paper and digital) use a standardized set of abbreviations to present a lot of information in a compact format - things like “RP” for right-traffic patterns or “*L” for runway lighting with limitations (which then requires checking the Chart Supplement to understand what the asterisk actually means). My point was simply that not being able to interpret these standard notations - and having to rely on an app like ForeFlight, Garmin Pilot, etc.. to decode them - is what I was lamenting. The same goes for reading coded METARs. I never meant to suggest that we should be using paper charts or pulling METARs off a teletype printer.
 
sarangan said:
The FAA’s charts (paper and digital) use a standardized set of abbreviations to present a lot of information in a compact format - things like “RP” for right-traffic patterns or “*L” for runway lighting with limitations (which then requires checking the Chart Supplement to understand what the asterisk actually means). My point was simply that not being able to interpret these standard notations - and having to rely on an app like ForeFlight, Garmin Pilot, etc.. to decode them - is what I was lamenting. The same goes for reading coded METARs. I never meant to suggest that we should be using paper charts or pulling METARs off a teletype printer.
Click to expand...
Had you ever given reasons why you think it’s necessary knowledge, it might have been more clear.
 
sarangan said:
My point was simply that not being able to interpret these standard notations - and having to rely on an app like ForeFlight, Garmin Pilot, etc.. to decode them - is what I was lamenting.
Click to expand...

Stepping back for a second, look at it as a communication platform using whatever level of technology existed at the time. Paper charts using color ink is just a certain level of technology and communication platform. Before that it was probably black and white with less symbols. Now we have new platforms (ForeFlight, Garmin, web sites, etc.) that take advantage of newer, more capable technology to communicate more efficiently, etc. Most are getting the latest sectional chart from the apps anyway.

A related example, there is no reason I can think of to abbreviate METARS and NOTAMS anymore. Use technology to provide full words, organize and prioritize, etc.

An older and less capable era of technology (paper charts with color ink) isn't superior because it is what I originally learned and used.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Had you ever given reasons why you think it’s necessary knowledge, it might have been more clear.
Click to expand...

Not really - it just felt like core knowledge to me. There’s also that other thread where we were debating whether understanding aircraft systems is actually necessary. Some argue it isn’t, and that we should leave those details to the experts (ie mechanics).

What I’ve noticed, though, is a significant overlap between the two groups of students: those who aren’t interested in aircraft systems also tend to be the ones who aren't able, or interested, to read information directly from FAA sources. Maybe it’s just the nerd in me lamenting this shift, but I genuinely get excited when a student shows an interest in such details. By the same token, I feel disappointed when students need ChatGPT or an app to look up everything.

I recently spent some time thinking about the FAA's definition of night - what is evening civil twiilight, how it translates to roughly 30 minutes after sunset at our latitude, why one definition of night references the position of sun and another one references time etc.. I find it pretty cool to learn the reasons behind these rules. Does this information make a pilot better? No. But I would like to think that aviators like us are in this activity to do more than just travel from A to B fast.
 
sarangan said:
I recently spent some time thinking about the FAA's definition of night - what is evening civil twiilight, how it translates to roughly 30 minutes after sunset at our latitude, why one definition of night references the position of sun and another one references time etc..
Click to expand...
I think where you’re getting crossed up is by paraphrasing things instead of using the actual FAA terminology. The FAA has only one definition of night.

I also think you lack a basic understanding of psychology…interest leads to learning. Requiring knowledge doesn’t lead to interest.
 
Last edited:
I could see how the FAA really has 3 definitions. 1) Sunset - when you turn your nav lights on, 2) End of Civil Twilight - when you log night flight time, and 3) One Hour Past Sunset - when you do your three takes off and landings to full stop to be able to carry a passenger at night.

Although I value simplicity, I can see how each of these "definitions" make sense. Still a bit light outside? Be conservative and turn on your nav lights anyway. Want to be proficient at night landing? Make sure it's really dark (no cheating there).
 
WDD said:
A related example, there is no reason I can think of to abbreviate METARS and NOTAMS anymore. Use technology to provide full words, organize and prioritize, etc.
Click to expand...

but then the international community wouldn't be able to flex their muscles wrt their own definitions and words (e.g., mist vs fog vs rain,)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WDD
WDD said:
A related example, there is no reason I can think of to abbreviate METARS and NOTAMS anymore. Use technology to provide full words, organize and prioritize, etc.
Click to expand...
Somewhere there's still a 300 baud teletype machine printing these things, and plenty of other automated tools running on a C64 in an airline's closet that expect a certain data format.
It's (sadly) easier to leave all that legacy infrastructure intact and have the EFB do a METAR translation than to attempt to fix it.
Remember, some of that information is distributed all over the world, so you need to think about this in a non-US centered way.
 
WDD said:
I could see how the FAA really has 3 definitions. 1) Sunset - when you turn your nav lights on, 2) End of Civil Twilight - when you log night flight time, and 3) One Hour Past Sunset - when you do your three takes off and landings to full stop to be able to carry a passenger at night.

Although I value simplicity, I can see how each of these "definitions" make sense. Still a bit light outside? Be conservative and turn on your nav lights anyway. Want to be proficient at night landing? Make sure it's really dark (no cheating there).
Click to expand...
Only one of those actually uses the word “night.” If you use the word “night” to describe all of those, you will find that you can legally fly passengers at night without being night current.
 
WDD said:
there is no reason I can think of to abbreviate METARS and NOTAMS anymore.
Click to expand...
The National Airspace System serves a lot more than recreational G.A. pilots. For those of us who read weather reports and notams everyday, the abbreviate format is much easier, and faster, to read. For those who fly less often, all of the tools exist to decode them for you.

A typical flight release package runs around 60 pages in length. A full Standard Briefing package is also quite a few pages. The abbreviated format reports make scanning, and finding specific information, much easier and quicker.

The FAA, through the old PTS, and new ACS, require applicants to have a level of understanding in reading and interpreting these reports. Nothing says that you can't use decoded product for your own flying.

You have the decoded products that you want. Don't take away the raw reports that us professional pilots need.
 
Brad Z said:
Please cite. That does not sound consistent with current enforcement policy.
Click to expand...
It's been quite a while since the incident and I don't have a reference to that particular inciden. I did do a general search and did find this statement presumably from the FAA that admits they have provided bad gouge in the past:

Yes, the FAA has inadvertently provided ForeFlight with incorrect times for a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR). Pilots have reported instances where TFRs were not accurately represented on ForeFlight, leading to potential violations of these restrictions. For example, there have been reports of pilots inadvertently entering TFRs over stadiums without realizing it, and ForeFlight's data may not always be up-to-date or accurate. It is crucial for pilots to verify TFR information directly with the FAA or through other reliable sources to ensure safety during flights.

Federal Aviation Administration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top