Do you think technology is (or can be) making it so easy for us to plan, navigate and fly, that people really are beginning to lose the basics of real flying?
I’m just a few weeks away from turning 40, and I think the transition to being a grumpy old man has just begun 
. A popular VFR product has a Facebook page, and every few weeks or so it asks its followers what else they would like to see. Today, the topic was about an alert flashing up when transitioning from one FIR to another (another unnecessary ‘option’ in my view, as you should know this anyhow, and either have the frequencies to hand, or find them easily on a chart).
However, in the usual replies of ‘can I have this, can I have that’, one person has suggested a warning in a descent from altitude to prompt you to apply the carb heat ! I mean really, do we need software to remind us of that, and for most people would be an auto reflex if indeed they have carb heat? I accept having ‘glide safe’ and some other features are a positive safety move, but surely people can remember the basics without having an iPad tell them what to do? My other moan is that, some of these products are becoming so bloated, it is becoming tedious to go through all the many many settings to make sure your preferred config hasn’t been changed whenever there is a release (it happened to me). At least with your GNS430 or other similar device, you have a product that just works out of the box, and it rarely changes until the next major hardware release some years down the line and you feel like a grown up adult using it.
Do you think technology is (or can be) making it so easy for us to plan, navigate and fly, that people really are beginning to lose the basics of real flying?
Definitely. The Cirrus for one is already flown more like a light jet than a Cessna. Typically you switch on the A/P after take-off and switch it off at Decision altitude or in the traffic pattern. While this is not perfect for our hand flying skills I can easily accept it becasue I’ve hand flown airplanes for twenty years and with doing some aerobatics ten years ago I think I am on the safe side and will never again forget completely forget how to fly by hand (ahhh… was PUSHING the yoke down? :-)))
Not so for a beginner who does his PPL in a Cirrus. If you do your PPL in 50 hours you have probably already flown twenty on Autopilot and if the first plane you buy is an SR22 … I am pretty sure your hand flying skills will be below the necessary standard two years later.
Navigation: I don’t care. There will always be GPS. It’s more important to REALLY learn these systems. Of course it’s good if you really swallowed basci navgiation and understand it. But VOR, ADF… forget it.
Don’t you worry about being a grumpy old man. I’m still practicing and I’m a little bit older than you (47 when I last counted). What you describe is just a sign of maturity.
What you describe is known as the illness of featuritis. Many software teams fall into that trap. They listen to every customer and implement whatever feature is requested. However, they fail to understand what problem their software is supposed to solve.
The example with the carb heat ist quite good. The need to be reminded is a symptom not a problem. The improvement would not be to learn how to operate the engine better but instead to improve the engine so turning on manually carb is no longer needed. Whatever the solution for that might be it doesn’t seem to lie within a flight planning application.
My concerns about how the user interface / or the user experience of the avionics influence single pilot IFR operations is related to your thought. One has to consider the whole system comprised of aircraft, aircraft systems, aerial environment, and pilot to figure out where to improve something or add a feature.
Not so for a beginner who does his PPL in a Cirrus
There is someone on a Facebook group who is doing his PPL in what looks like a Cirrus (full glass cockpit). I did ask him how much emphasis there is on the glass cockpit during training, and refreshingly although he said there was 6 hours ground instruction on it (seems fair enough, and safe), he did say he has to do all his planning with charts, PLOG, Whizz Wheel etc, and that there has been no use of the autopilot at all. Although we berate the whizz-wheel, I think you have to be able to dome stuff on something without a battery in the beginning. He said in one respect it was more of a challenge to learn on a modern machine because most books talk about the traditional gauges, and he had to relate that to the glass display. I did also politely ask if he was able to fly on a six-pack, and he said yes, so I guess in his training they had him spend some time in an older machine. I wonder if his path will mean he will find it easier of harder to do his PPL in the minimum 45 hours. That guy seemed grounded and sensible.
What you describe is known as the illness of featuritis. Many software teams fall into that trap. They listen to every customer and implement whatever feature is requested. However, they fail to understand what problem their software is supposed to solve.
To be fair to this one, since my post (not sure it was because of my post), they have re-asked the question as to why information about FIS boundary changes might need to be alerted (so looking at the cause). I guess there is a lot of competition in this market and you have to be engaging with your customers and stay competitive. Featuritis as Stephan describes it, is unfortunately a by-product of that demand…
Piper,
yes, I know that MANY new Cirrus pilots do it the right way – during instrcution. But what if you learned to fly for 40 hours and then only fly by A/P after buying your new SR22? My estimate is that two years later most pilots will be terrible manual pilots …. Just look at the Airlines. Look at Asiana/SFO: 3 pilots in the cockpit, super VMC weather…. still they crash because they have very little hand flying experience… in some cases much less than me 20 year private pilot
But what if you learned to fly for 40 hours and then only fly by A/P after buying your new SR22?
I totally agree. I think you have to do your time on the basics first, though I’d never want to deny anyone jumping straight into a SR22. I’d love a glass cockpit, and although there are limitations I quite enjoy flying using the steam gauges. I have my GNS430 and iPad to make use of modern equipment. But that’s my mission profile. I do little ‘touring’ generally little more than 2 hour legs really, so I can get by on my equipment and basic A/P. An SR22 is appealing, and maybe that time will come one day. Still having fun in the PA28 :-)
You know, I still HAVE my PA-28 (a Warrior, can’t sell it because it was my father’s plane when i was only 17)…. and now I have the SR22 for 7 months. But I tell you, that was really a step. Although I had flown the 20 and 22 a couple of times as a journalist – it was a challenge. Thank you Bosco, for your patience :-)
I learned to to fly manually when I still didn’t have an A/P on those trips to Sweden, Spain and Crete. Do that for 18 years and manual flying is easy.
Alexis, what is being taught about VORs and ADF in today’s PPL syllabus isn’t much more than just interpretation of the display. It is almost irrelevant, what data feeds the CDI or the RMI. You just have to remember the small differences if you use GPS data, but at least I teach the use of GPS either with it’s CDI and / or with the “pseudo RMI” in form of Bearing / Track numbers. What they have to learn is to use a VDF bearing to get to a place, because essentially this is a technique with can be offered by FIS or ATC if your Nav turns sour.
Stephan, I don’t want a carb heat to be actuated for me. Same goes for the Mixture or the Prop or Throttle. If my engine doesn’t deliver the power it is supposed to, I want to have control over the engine. But I don’t know if GA can survive with these requirements for pilots knowledge and skill. However, if you have a fully integrated glass cockpit and relay on computers for your complete flight management and navigation, there is no reason not to extend this automation to the engine. The engines would probably last longer, then, too.
For my personal fun, give me a D11 with a map and my Aristo over any G1000 plane any day. Or a nice Pitts.
cheers,
There is a lot of intelligent software design, especially for wind vectors, weather, terrain awareness, SUA alerts, TCAS and synthetic vision. Ideally these should continue to be made available more widely with simpler TSO processes. However, I also believe the faultiest software on board, the soft brained pilot, should meet some basic self test, software integrity training standards.
My heart sank when the UK CAA has indicated that PPLs do not need to understand the 1 in 60 rule!
Having a little trig as your basic skill set and understanding drift, the clock code and how to figure out in your head, quickly, crosswind and head/tailwind component should be second nature for any pilot (OK drift in a SR-71 might be academic). How difficult is it to remember sin and cosine for 15, 30, 45 degrees?
While my usual aircraft is no electric, no gyro (what is this GPS you speak of earthlings), even on an airways aircraft I like the ability to figure out a WCA without using up too much of the limited grey cell capacity.
