The Magenta Line - Sport Aviation article

MickYoumans

MickYoumans

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,334
Location
2J5 / KBXG - Georgia
Display Name
Display name:
MickYoumans
Has anyone else had a chance to read Mac McClellan's article "The Magenta Line" in the August issue of EAA Sport Aviation? I know there are some magenta line naysayers out there, but I thought Mac had some good observations that I have been supporting all along since the big iPad boom with WingX, ForeFlight and other EFB's. The following is from the article;

Without a GPS we devote a great deal of time to determine exactly where we are. ......

With GPS all of that pilot concentration time spent on locating our position and determining our ground track and speed is now available continuously for other tasks. With GPS we have more time to scan for traffic, to monitor the engine and systems, and to keep up to date on the weather ahead. Aren't those more important to safety and maintaining situation awareness? I think so.

The real issue is that the magenta line frees us from cockpit chores that were previously essential because only the human could perform those tasks. Position finding and navigation are no less critical; they just can now be done by a machine with greater precision, giving the pilot time for other tasks machines can't do.

When I first learned to fly back in the 80's, I remember having a chart out in my lap with a compass ruler either doing deadreckoning or dialing in VOR radials to plot on the cart to see where they intersect. While I think these are great skills to teach students so they will have a means of backup navigation if they lost their GPS or other instruments, I agree with Mac that the GPS frees up so much of my time for other things, including sight seeing. It is also so nice now having a clutter free (paper free) cockpit.

So, what's the negative downside again?
 
bat-trees. I think the argument is yo bat-trees can cr@p out. otherwise, much respect for how they did it in the old days, but I'll keep my gps thank u very much.
 
I find I lose situational awareness if I use my GPS for navigation.

I use charts as my primary navigation and the GPS to check my work.

I fly for fun, low and slow.

I suspect if the destination was the goal I might be more enamored with GPS and the magenta line.
 
You've shilled this same story on three sites, but my answer is still the same. However, I agree, The biggest improvement in IFR safety in recent memory is a good moving map. Trying to maintain situational awareness with a couple of needles on two VOR heads can lead to some rather fatal excursions. For example, we had a guy crash here a few years back and investigation suggests that he was tracking inbound to a (not quite nearby enough) VOR rather than flying the ILS. Not only would a good moving map show that "Hey, something is really wrong with the position" mine would have also warned two more ways:

1. Hey, you don't have the ILS frequency tuned and/or the HSI isn't set to display it.
2. TERRAIN AHEAD.
 
I really like GPS and loved my first LORAN. It does free up some time and lets us do other things. I also keep a current chart and keep up with where I am on the chart, although I don't keep my finger on it like I used to :). I guess I like the belt and suspenders method.
 
flyingron said:
You've shilled this same story on three sites, but my answer is still the same. However, I agree
Click to expand...
Yes, I did that on purpose because the demographics of the three sites are a bit different. I view the EAA site as more 'Blue Collar' and POA somewhere in between EAA and the AOPA forums. I thought it would be interesting to see the perspectives of all three groups.
 
I sure like the GPS, but I'll admit, since I started flying in the GPS age, I never really developed very good dead reckoning skills. It was taught to me, and I used those skills extensively during training, but I've pretty much just followed the magenta line since then. I need to work on that.
 
I still work on navigation. I took a short flight last Saturday, just building XC time, 51nm flight. I actually did a nav log and navigated by pilotage "some", but I used Foreflight too. To me, it's fun to plan and navigate, "some" to keep the skill somewhat sharp.
 
How do you go direct to an airstrip not in the database and you don't have the lat/long for it to enter a waypoint?
 
I find that the time I spend navigating by paper, and the time I spend fiddling with GPS knobs and buttons are about the same. I.e. Not very much.

Pilotage is not hard, and executing a plan by ded reckoning doesn't take much time. VOR navigation is rigorously less complex -- there are MANY fewer modes and settings, and automation surprise is much rarer.

So, it sounds to me like someone isn't proficient on paper.

Lost procedures are faster with a magic device that tells you the answer, but if you've gotten that far, you have already screwed up.

Honestly, if you don't back up the GPS with pilotage anyway, you don't have the situational awareness you think you do.
 
There is a large contingent of eaa folks out there that would pay good money to watch Mac fly a j-3 cub on a cross country, many including myself think he would not be able to accomplish such a flight by dead reckoning, using a paper chart etc.

Gps is great but with that free time that it supposedly frees up, are you using that to look around your flight path and cross check your situation and choosing optional landing sites for an emergency or are you using it to text message, twitterbooking, or fiddling with your knob?
 
GPS is a tool. Like every tool it has it's uses, it's strengths and it's weaknesses.
Like every other tool in the history of man, you learn to use it and you adapt.
Guys who look down their noses at GPS are probably the same guys (genetically) who refused to use fire or learn how to knap flint, or every other "new" invention.
"I'm not using that stupid hammer. The handle could break and I might get hurt. I'll just keep hitting the nail with this rock."
 
Acrodustertoo said:
There is a large contingent of eaa folks out there that would pay good money to watch Mac fly a j-3 cub on a cross country, many including myself think he would not be able to accomplish such a flight by dead reckoning, using a paper chart etc.

Gps is great but with that free time that it supposedly frees up, are you using that to look around your flight path and cross check your situation and choosing optional landing sites for an emergency or are you using it to text message, twitterbooking, or fiddling with your knob?
Click to expand...

Whoa horseys!
I flew a J-3, on floats, from Verplanck, NY to Montana and back in 1965 using nothing but charts, road maps and a couple of compasses. It took me 3ish weeks , and while there were a couple of times I wasn't 100% sure where I was, I was never lost. Of course, in those days, almost every town still had it's name painted on the roof of a building to help us intrepid aviators. When I ran out of money, I would land and do odd jobs.
 
20 years ago when I stopped flying, I was IFR.. ( I Follow Roads), had a chart out and would look for landmarks to fly to, when getting to one, would then find the next one out 30 to 50 miles and go to it... Now I fly the "the line",,, and when on the line look for a landmark and fly to it referencing the line to see if I'm really going where I need to. It is about the same... Day, VFR only... It is great to have weather on the tablet, and any radio info needed at hand, and if needed to land somewhere having a lot of info fast sure helps. So for me it is great... 300 mile trips are easier and I still get to see the landscape as that is really what I am following. And So Cal airspace is much more crazy than before so having a well understood moving map of the area helps keep one out of trouble...
 
I see no downside to technology, you just have to have to be capable of dealing with the situation if it fails.
 
MAKG1 said:
Pilotage is not hard, and executing a plan by ded reckoning doesn't take much time. VOR navigation is rigorously less complex -- there are MANY fewer modes and settings, and automation surprise is much rarer.
Click to expand...
DEAD, damn it!
Honestly, if you don't back up the GPS with pilotage anyway, you don't have the situational awareness you think you do.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to tell me how to do use pilotage as a backup when I'm in the soup.
 
flyingron said:
You're going to have to tell me how to do use pilotage as a backup when I'm in the soup.
Click to expand...

Do you stay in the soup all the time? Most IFR is not like that.

Do you practice a single method of navigation? Yes, it's legal with WAAS. Not very smart, though.

Have you ever lost a GPS signal in flight? I have. On an LPV approach in the clouds near mountainous terrain, no less. No, it didn't kill my SA.
 
flyingron said:
DEAD, damn it!

You're going to have to tell me how to do use pilotage as a backup when I'm in the soup.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The thread is referring to VFR flight and pilotage, dead reckoning etc vs GPS, or using a combination of the two for VFR flight.
 
Last edited:
Too much head down time fiddling with the TVs. Mid-air at Boulder suspected result. That said I like my glass.
 
I'm a fan of GPS and FMS systems. I like old school ways also, but going A to B I use GPS 100%. The more direct the better!
 
Lachlan said:
Why do you say the abbreviated version of "deduced" should be spelled d e a d?
Click to expand...
Stop. Just stop.

Please stop attempting to perpetuate mythology.

Dead Reckoning has always been the proper name dating back to the 17th century. Aviators didn't make it up. It comes from the maritime world.

You won't find Ded Reckoning in the American Practical Navigator that has been published since the early 19th Century. You WILL find Dead Reckoning discussed, however.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Stop. Just stop.

Please stop attempting to perpetuate mythology.

Dead Reckoning has always been the proper name dating back to the 17th century. Aviators didn't make it up. It comes from the maritime world.

You won't find Ded Reckoning in the American Practical Navigator that has been published since the early 19th Century. You WILL find Dead Reckoning discussed, however.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean please stop trying to make it make sense.
 
What sort of deducing are you doing that it would be "ded" reckoning?
 
EdFred said:
What sort of deducing are you doing that it would be "ded" reckoning?
Click to expand...
Maybe there is an 'a' in the word deduce in some other language, who knows, its not worth arguing about. :)
 
exncsurfer said:
Maybe there is an 'a' in the word deduce in some other language, who knows, its not worth arguing about. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe it was originally spelled with a ligature derived from the Anglo-Saxon rune ash:

"daeduce"

...and somebody dyslexic came along. :)
 
Sac Arrow said:
I see no downside to technology, you just have to have to be capable of dealing with the situation if it fails.
Click to expand...

I do.

Workload managing the FMS can get very large for otherwise simple things, under some circumstances.

For instance, going missed on an approach and then immediately starting one on another nearby airport. Even with VTF, that can get pretty work-intensive. There is much less to be done to execute a VOR or ILS approach the old fashioned way (yes, you can still do that with a GPS, but it's not always implemented well -- for instance the G1000 does not allow the use of two CDIs simultaneously). And automation surprise is FAR more likely with a coupled GPS. When that happens, it can induce task saturation.

There is also no sequencing to manage without the GPS. Auto-sequencing doesn't always work (especially when vectored off the route), and there are a couple of situations where it just suspends.
 
Then you just aren't good enough it to operate the equipment efficiently. It's OK to admit other people are better at things that you find difficult/daunting/impossible. Really it is.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I sure like the GPS, but I'll admit, since I started flying in the GPS age, I never really developed very good dead reckoning skills. It was taught to me, and I used those skills extensively during training, but I've pretty much just followed the magenta line since then. I need to work on that.
Click to expand...
A lot of folks lose visual navigation skills for various reasons.

Pure dead reckoning I've never been crazy about as a practical VFR skill That's picking a heading and time based on winds and hoping the predictions were right. I figure it had its heyday in the time of the early airmail pilots - fly above a cloud deck or in poor visual conditions, calculate where you will be at certain points and with a little skill using and EFB and a lot of luck, you'll be somewhere nearby.

Pilotage, on the other hand - knowing where you are all the time - is, I think, essential. And an EFB can actually help you enhance that skill. The most difficult part of pilotage is comparing the view outside with the chart. And that's as much a function of perspective as anything else. I've seen pilots miss very easy, highly visible landmarks because, being used to ground and streets, they simply have too narrow a view. Literally. They look just below the front of the airplane for the lake 15 miles in the distance.

An EFB can actually help (re)gain pilotage skills. You now have a reference - own ship position, distance rings, distance data, etc etc to use as a crutch* to learn what those relationships are, so you can do lern to do without.

[*I mean "crutch" in the very best sense of the term - a temporary device you need and use while you overcome a weakness.]
 
EdFred said:
Then you just aren't good enough it to operate the equipment efficiently. It's OK to admit other people are better at things that you find difficult/daunting/impossible. Really it is.
Click to expand...
Now that's funny :D

I guess it's also about knowing that tools have different capabilities and some are better at certain functions than others.
 
midlifeflyer said:
A lot of folks lose visual navigation skills for various reasons.

Pure dead reckoning I've never been crazy about as a practical VFR skill That's picking a heading and time based on winds and hoping the predictions were right. I figure it had its heyday in the time of the early airmail pilots - fly above a cloud deck or in poor visual conditions, calculate where you will be at certain points and with a little skill using and EFB and a lot of luck, you'll be somewhere nearby.

Pilotage, on the other hand - knowing where you are all the time - is, I think, essential. And an EFB can actually help you enhance that skill. The most difficult part of pilotage is comparing the view outside with the chart. And that's as much a function of perspective as anything else. I've seen pilots miss very easy, highly visible landmarks because, being used to ground and streets, they simply have too narrow a view. Literally. They look just below the front of the airplane for the lake 15 miles in the distance.

An EFB can actually help (re)gain pilotage skills. You now have a reference - own ship position, distance rings, distance data, etc etc to use as a crutch* to learn what those relationships are, so you can do lern to do without.

[*I mean "crutch" in the very best sense of the term - a temporary device you need and use while you overcome a weakness.]
Click to expand...
FWIW, pure dead reckoning is really something only guys flying the oceans did back in the early days.

It WAS a critical skill for the Navy guys who had to find their way from the boat to the objective and back to the boat again.

I doubt too many airmail guys used it.
 
EdFred said:
Then you just aren't good enough it to operate the equipment efficiently. It's OK to admit other people are better at things that you find difficult/daunting/impossible. Really it is.
Click to expand...

Who said impossible? I said the workload was higher, under some circumstances. It is. I do pay attention to what I'm spending my time on.

I'm quite capable of flying a coupled glass cockpit in IMC, even with a failure. I'm also quite capable of doing it with steam gauges and paper. Fault recovery is substantially easier with the latter.

Have you seen the state chart for even a basic GPS? How about a VOR? The latter is a LOT simpler.
 
Shepherd said:
....."I'm not using that stupid hammer. The handle could break and I might get hurt. I'll just keep hitting the nail with this rock."
Click to expand...

Are you implying the nail was invented before the hammer? :)
 
Lachlan said:
Why do you say the abbreviated version of "deduced" should be spelled d e a d?
Click to expand...

Because it is NOT an abbreviated version of deduced. The etymology is DEAD, as in NOT LIVING. It's been so since the SEVENTEENTH century or earlier. The claim that it is derived from "deduced" doesn't stand any linguistic scrutiny.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Stop. Just stop.

Please stop attempting to perpetuate mythology.

Dead Reckoning has always been the proper name dating back to the 17th century. Aviators didn't make it up. It comes from the maritime world.

You won't find Ded Reckoning in the American Practical Navigator that has been published since the early 19th Century. You WILL find Dead Reckoning discussed, however.
Click to expand...
flyingron said:
Because it is NOT an abbreviated version of deduced. The etymology is DEAD, as in NOT LIVING. It's been so since the SEVENTEENTH century or earlier. The claim that it is derived from "deduced" doesn't stand any linguistic scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Could you look up the definition of deduce, deduced, and deductive? If you do, you may find out that "deduced reckoning" does indeed stand up to linguistic scrutiny. And 4 out of 5 living reckoners approve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top