Children of the Magenta Line. Applies to GA types too

[Ixixly]

Come on everyone, I think we can all agree that not having to contact a map anymore is definitely the best part of Digital Charts

I'll admit, doing it successfully left one feeling pretty chuffed though!

Re-read your post pithblot, I think I misunderstood you when I read it the first time. Think we're basically on the same page anyway here.

[pithblot]

Good job Ixixly. I think we'd also be on the same page about down-sizing the Nav Bag and never having to hand ammend sheets marked 'This page intentionally blank'.

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by mikewil

And if they pulled out their iPhone with fully charged battery and up to date database using the same application, would you then give them the tick of approval? Or would you keep on throwing their backups out the window until they pulled out a crusty old paper chart with coffee stains and rips all over it?

Yeah I might accept accept that. Depends. Providing they had all the appropriate bits downloaded and ready to go and not needing a 4G signal and could quickly set it all up, maybe.

I would ask them if they would start a flight if they used a tablet but always carried an iPhone as a back up what would they do if climbing into the cockpit at the start of a 2 day trip, they dropped their phone and made the screen unreadable, what would they do? Abort the flight? Be able to use a WAC?

I also would want to make sure they could operate head out and not staring at a tiny screen like a phone but I would think that a reasonable argument for them to make if they always carried a back up and could comfortably operate it (I know my fat fingers are not great on phones, especially if bouncing about).

Then again I am someone who takes pilot's calculators off them if they try to use them in flight or if the only have one pencil arrange for it to be "dropped".

Originally Posted by dhavillandpilot

But try a flight from Birdsville to Alice Springs and halfway there the GPS goes off line. For a situationally aware pilot, read animal cunning pilot, it's no big deal.

Earlier this year on a flight to a cattle station north of Coober Pedy just near the SA/NT border (a long way off the highway and not many features), I had my device (using OzRwy) suddenly shutdown and refuse to reboot about 20 minutes after departure from Broken Hill. No idea why - battery was 100%, it was not hot, then it came good on a later leg when I tried it and hasn't done it again. I just don't trust it. I have always been wary of handheld devices and this only confirmed it.

I would like to know that if that had happened to someone I signed off could handle a similar situation prudently - maybe by having their iphone ready to go as suggested or by having the right WACS or even doing a reciprocal heading back to YBHI if that was smartest.

[mustafagander]

Being a dinosaur in the aviation world, and all other worlds too I must say, I use my iPad and Ozthingo to give me tracks and distances so I can prepare a flight plan. I then extract appropriate winds from the ARFOR and make the appropriate twists of the whizz wheel. I grew up with the three Cs - Chart, Clock, Compass - and I don't want to lose those skills.

My recent AFR was negotiated so that I turned off own ship position and used the iPad as I always do - a sophisticated WAC.

Like a number of my friends and colleagues who fly for fun after retirement, I avoid using the full capacity of the EFB to maintain proficiency and a sense of achievement when I fly.

I always carry 2 iPads and a spare external battery of suitable capacity coz I'm a wimp - I hate excitement in the air. Also I keep up to date on my current position by looking out the window and checking for expected road/rail crossings etc. It worked a treat on a recent outback safari I did with a few pals which took me way, way away from my familiar east coast places. I'm more than comfortable not having a paper chart on board and I save a small fortune as a bonus.

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by Nibbles2310

So you'll see how a pilot handles being removed of a device that has become their main tool of navigation during a BFR but you won't teach new students how to use an EFB effectively and just expect them to figure it out?

A little bit of an assumption there. I certainly discuss the use of EFB devices and how they can make life easy but avoid them having access to it in flight. I also would use taking the EFB away as an opportunity to teach new (or relearn forgotten) skills. A flight review is not a test in my opinion but a chance to learn and polish and gain confidence and broaden viewpoints.

If they can navigate with chart and DR, learning to use an EFB is (I think) a piece of cake. And if the EFB fails... they won't be thrown and can drop back a level to skills they have practiced and shown to have proficiency in.

Originally Posted by Nibbles2310

A far more effective way would be to integrate both methods of navigation into the initial training so that one does not become a slave to the magenta line once they get the freedom of flying by themselves.

EFBs are effective and reliable but there needs to be emphasis on how to maintain situational awareness and mitigate the risks (which does not necessarily mean reverting to paper).

That idea (adding EFBs to DR training) is certainly worth exploring - particularly looking at how EFBs can introduce problems like loss of SA and reliance on what the machine says over what they see out the cockpit.

I do get worried when I hear of pilots starting off (and finishing off) their nav training solely using an EFB rather than basic navigation principles. That said, incorporating such aids in their training is worth considering if it makes for safer pilots and as they become more ubiquitous that they use them well.

I would still say I want them to have solid DR training though and would not sacrifice that.

I am curious how you would envisage incorporating EFB alonside DR navigation in nav training for PPLs (seriously - if it makes for safer pilots then I am quite open to the idea). What would you cover in that sort of training? How much time would you devote? What are the pitfalls of using them? How would you mitigate against those pitfalls and how would you train that practically?

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by jonkster

I do get worried when I hear of pilots starting off (and finishing off) their nav training solely using an EFB rather than basic navigation principles.

I would still say I want them to have solid DR training though and would not sacrifice that.

Without wanting to sound like a smartasre, could you explain why you feel this way?

I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, and consider things like the whiz-wheel and paper charts a legacy-style of navigation that doesn't really have a place in the modern cockpit. Can I use them? Certainly. Could I use them if all that fancy tech goes dark Certainly. Do I? Not at all.

The use of a sextant and tables are long gone, because technology overtook them, the same can be said of paper charts and DR-style navigation. But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

[Sunfish]

KRviator:

But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

However the probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally. That is if you even have the skills to determine you are being sent duff information.

Unless you learn to establish your position from first principles you are in a world of hurt if the system fails.

Or my BFR (VFR) the GPS was turned off for good reason.

[Duck Pilot]

Is anyone teaching 1:60s and using wiz wheels inflight theses days.

I still have my Kane metal slide wheel that I used in my early navs, this and a map and the windows alway got me from A to B, even in remote areas without a GPS around the Kimberleys.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

KRviator:

The probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally.

I completely agree, but single-point failures abound in aviation, particularly light single's, yet we willingly accept them. A drive failure in one of those pesky dual-magneto setups puts you in a potentially life-threatening situation, right now. Any number of fuel system components would, if they failed, result in engine fire or failure, yet we willingly accept that.

Navigating using GNSS for sole-means nav does not result in a life threatening situation, particularly for VFR pilots, should the primary GPS fail. You move to your backup. Sure you might have to carry out a PSAL if you cannot establish your position and you are nearing fuel exhaustion, but that - to me anyway - is merely an annoyance, and a pretty unlikely one at that, it is not a single-point failure that is as serious as people make it out to be.

I work for a rail company that has used the traditional automatic airbrake since they kicked off, however, a few years ago they introduced ECP braking, a new system controlled electronically with computers on each wagon. The reliability of the ECP system is now they are no longer training driver's to use the automatic air brake, meaning if it fails, they have to bring in more experienced driver to move the train if ECP cannot be recovered. But that is progress, and has the full blessing of the national rail safety regulator. I bring this up because just because something has always been done, does not mean it should continue to be done if technology has improved sufficiently. Personally, I think we are beyond that point now with GNSS and EFB's, so long as you have an adequate backup.

It seems we're at a crossroads in Australia regarding GNSS for AIUI, a PVT operation may be conducted under the IFR in an aircraft fitted with only a single GNSS that meets TSO-145/146 or 196 - there is no requirement for a ground-based backup VOR/NDB (CAO 20.18 9D.6 & 9D.7). If your destination has a GNSS approach, you are not required to plan an alternate (based on navaids AIP ENR1.1 11.8.3.1b), so what do you do if you are IMC enroute to your destination, and your (single) nav source fails?

You can't fly the approach, you probably can't even find your destination, and you aren't carrying an alternate, not that you could find your way to it in any event. This is both legal and possible, yet a lowly PPL using GNSS must be expected to use a paper chart in an open cockpit?

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by KRviator

Without wanting to sound like a smartasre, could you explain why you feel this way?

I think it comes down to ensuring that pilots have the confidence to know they can cope when things go wrong.

By handing more and more of the pilot load over to automated systems we make flying easier and more convenient and free up our mental horsepower to deal with decision making which is good.

However if the pilot does not have fallback understandings and training they are at a disadvantage when the technology doesn't operate as it should.

Originally Posted by KRviator

I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, and consider things like the whiz-wheel and paper charts a legacy-style of navigation that doesn't really have a place in the modern cockpit. Can I use them? Certainly. Could I use them if all that fancy tech goes dark Certainly.

which says to me you have a good understanding of the underpinning knowledge of navigation and management of an aircraft in flight that you were taught and is a good backstop when things go wrong.

Originally Posted by KRviator

Do I? Not at all.

which is fine by me. You make a decision based on your equipment, training and experience. Pilot judgement is needed not prescription. So long as it is based on good foundations.

Originally Posted by KRviator

The use of a sextant and tables are long gone, because technology overtook them, the same can be said of paper charts and DR-style navigation.

If a pilot pulled out a sextant to navigate on a proficiency check I would both be *very* impressed and would also take the sextant off them saying it just dropped on the floor and was now broken...

DR is not a technology. It is a process and in its most basic form relies on the simplest of technology - some paper, your eyes, brain and fingers. In a pinch you don't need a pencil and you certainly don't need a whizzwheel or protractor or ruler, just a chart. Charts are not infallible and can tear, get blown away or go missing but the failure modes and rates of a paper chart are low.

If you have accurate systems that constantly give you positive fixes and give command indications to direct you in the flight that is great. Providing you understand why they do what they do, that you can determine if there may be an issue with that technology and are not so totally reliant on it to the point that should it fail you will be left in a nasty situation.

Originally Posted by KRviator

But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

If the equipment is certified their reliability is high and if it has appropriate backup systems I would agree.

If it is handhold consumer grade devices bought at your local electronics shop I am not so much worried about the GPS signal as about the reliability and durability of the device.

On a recent remote flight I have had a tablet simply shut down and then refuse to properly boot. Due to my own stupidity I had a mobile phone drop in the cockpit recently and crack the screen. They are not designed to be that resilient. They are designed to be cheap and need replacing on a short cycle as consumer items.



Is this scenario too far fetched? I would say no.

A pilot is heading back from Goulburn to Bankstown in the afternoon and she has an EFB and uses her phone as a back up. She is conscientous and safety minded so everything is downloaded on both, both fully charged and she also carries a spare 'brick battery' and cable because she is prudent and knows from experience sometimes batteries on these things go downhill suddenly.

She has done this flight many times and is now familiar with the area. In fact she is finding she barely even looks at the devices these days because she knows the route and land layout so well. Basically you can almost just follow the highway. Easy peasy.

Forecast is not great with some low cloud but still quite legal and looking north seems OK.

Heavy showers of rain and worsening wx are predicted to move up from the south after the pilot's planned flight so she doesn't want to hang around or she will be stuck in Goulburn overnight and she needs to get to work tomorrow.

She has done it in worse looking weather without pushing VFR conditions so is not overly concerned providing she gets away on time.

Then just prior to departing, while refueling, her phone drops out of her pocket and smashes the screen Bugga. Need to get that fixed in Sydney. She has her EFB on the yoke and knows the route well and needs to keep moving or will risk nasty weather (in which case it means missing work tomorrow).

Not long after departing Goulburn heavy rain and mist behind her appears making return to Goulburn a no go. She was not expecting that so soon but it is behind her so still good.

Then in front the weather deteriorates. Heavy showers directly in front like a black wall. The Hume Highway just disappears into clag a few miles in front.

To the east the cloud base is dropping and vis reducing in rain. The west looks fairly OK though base is lowering but she can still see blue sky under the cloud near the horizon. The pilot sensibly decides to head that way and bites the bullet - she will try Crookwell and either stop there or see what the weather does. Looks like she will have to call work tonight and cancel the meetings she was chairing Oh well. Better to to be prudent than push her luck in the clag.

She finds Crookwell on the EFB and hits 'go direct'. At which point the screen freezes with the dialog box right over the bits of the map that she wants to see. She tries rebooting. That doesn't work. Now just a black screen with a funny spinning wheel icon. She realises she has had her head down in the cockpit for a minute or two trying to get the EFB to work. She has lost sight of the highway. Still looks reasonably OK to the west but she doesn't recognise what she is seeing on the ground anymore so not 100% sure exactly where she is. She has no chart. No phone, no EFB, no instrument rating, no GPS and no radio nav aids.

She aims in a rough direction that looks clear hoping to find Crookwell and this is no longer a pleasant situation.

She makes a radio call and eventually with assistance and is guided to a safe haven where she spends the night and decides to give flying away and feels scared, embarrassed and that she is useless.

Or she pulls a coffee stained old WAC chart out of the seat pocket, makes an estimate of her last location, estimates a track to Crookwell and time estimate, works out when she sees a distinctive shaped dam she is slightly left of track and calculates a heading and revised estimate for Crookwell, revises her sar time, lands and spends a fun night at the Criterion Hotel feeling confident in her ability, proud of herself but also wiser and grateful she had crusty old farts who forced her to do her nav training using antiquated techniques that modern technology has overatken and made redundant.

Or she panics and all bets are off as the outcome...



Nothing wrong with EFBs providing people have a sound background in DR techniques. I use one. I also have a WAC(or two) or VNC on my knee. I still have the plastic folder and bit of string I used when flying with charts in an open cockpit.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Children of the magenta was about becoming a slave to the technology. Simple procedures that would normally take a press of a disarm button, a visual turn to a visual approach then arming as little as you need to complete the mission. Too much time spent heads down entering data to facilitate a basic simple task.

VFR GA is as simple as it gets...what is so bloody wrong about brushing up on your DR or pilotage techniques.

[ShyTorque]

I hope everyone is still hand swinging their props. These modern starter motors can fail, don't you know.

[Duck Pilot]

I totally concur Oz! To much reliance on gadgets that keeps the head in the cockpit not out.

[NumptyAussie]

I am not really a conspiracy nut..but to trust your sole ability to navigate anything to the whim of the land of the Orange Donald may, in these times, be a little....careless?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

[Sunfish]

just push the "direct to" button..........

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by NumptyAussie

I am not really a conspiracy nut..but to trust your sole ability to navigate anything to the whim of the land of the Orange Donald may, in these times, be a little....careless?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob...tioning_System

CAsA says it's safe, so it must be so!

[NumptyAussie]

Originally Posted by KRviator

CAsA says it's safe, so it must be so!

If you have a spare five minutes, it may be worth reading about a incident where a fully specced up aircraft managed to almost hit a lighthouse during a aproach. Unfortunately it did result in the loss of lives.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/preliminary-report-2017-006.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZi46in_fWAhXFopQKHaxjCVEQFggsMAQ&usg=AOv Vaw2B5PjtTzafLuQQCKBaT7pF

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

I hope everyone is still hand swinging their props. These modern starter motors can fail, don't you know.

We teach forced landing procedures because engines can fail. That said, most PPLs will never have an engine failure in their lifetime. We teach procedures to deal with electrical fires. Most PPLs will never encounter one in flight. We teach precautionary search procedures. Most PPLs will never find themselves needing to do one. We teach radio failure procedures. Most PPLs will never experience one. Should we stop doing that?

Why teach emergency procedures if most PPLs will never have an emergency in flight?

Most people have had a phone or tablet die though in the last few years. Do a google search for "my ipod is frozen" or "my ipad won't boot".

What is more likely? A faulty tablet/phone or an engine failure?

I have had more of the former than the later. Teaching emergency procedures is valuable but teaching basic nav skills is a waste of time because EFBs can do that stuff?

The sooner we have autoland and advanced FMS on GA aircraft the better I think. I mean who wants to actually fly an aircraft by hand when the technology can do a way better job?

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by jonkster

We teach forced landing procedures because engines can fail. That said, most PPLs will never have an engine failure in their lifetime. We teach procedures to deal with electrical fires. Most PPLs will never encounter one in flight. We teach precautionary search procedures. Most PPLs will never find themselves needing to do one. We teach radio failure procedures. Most PPLs will never experience one. Should we stop doing that?

Why teach emergency procedures if most PPLs will never have an emergency in flight?

Most people have had a phone or tablet die though in the last few years. Do a google search for "my ipod is frozen" or "my ipad won't boot".

What is more likely? A faulty tablet/phone or an engine failure?

I have had more of the former than the later. Teaching emergency procedures is valuable but teaching basic nav skills is a waste of time because EFBs can do that stuff?

But it isn't the failure I take issue with. It's the denying of a reasonable & legitimate (ie, self-contained, independent) backup. If you launch blindly relying on your single EFB to get you where you need to go, I completely agree, you're an idiot. They can, and do, fail - which is why I have 4 GPS' on board, including a TSO'd unit, so I can continue the flight should one, two or even three fail.

But 'failing' one on a BFR or check ride, then denying the checkee the ability to use their phone/second tablet (or sextant!) is unreasonable, IMHO. Unless the GPS is being spoofed, which is pretty damn unlikely in Australia, I would have more faith in my Galaxy phone picking up where the simulated 'failed' Ipad left off, and keeping me on track and out of the weeds than the continuing operation of an engine designed long before any posters here were born!

If CAsA say a single GPS is good enough for IFR / IMC at night, with no navigation backup whatsoever, I can't agree VFR pilots should continue with the 'old school' methods, when they will become so unaccustomed to actually using them, if they need to, they're probably more likely to make an error while stressed and ending up worse off than they would be simply going to a backup, second EFB.

[kaz3g]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

KRviator:



However the probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally. That is if you even have the skills to determine you are being sent duff information.

Unless you learn to establish your position from first principles you are in a world of hurt if the system fails.

Or my BFR (VFR) the GPS was turned off for good reason.

It seems that everyone is missing the point. Whether you use a paper chart or a digital one, you must fly VFR rules and that means establishing your position by reference to the ground at the required intervals. You have to look outside.

I just happen to find it very reassuring when I'm a long way from anywhere to see the fix point on the ground, to identify it as a correlation with my chart AND have my position confirmed by the dinky little aeroplane that moves across the map (apparently).

I get even more reassurance when my second iPad (mini) and my Garmin agree, too. But if they all gave different coordinate results I would still know by referencing ground to chart, knowing where my last fix was and how I got to my present one in what time frame. And if the screens all failed, I still have a set of paper charts in the bag already marked up for my flight plan.

The AUSTER and I will be back in outback NSW and Qld next May participating in the RFDS 90th Anniversary odyssey from Dubbo to Mt Isa and we will try not to get lost.

Kaz

PS? We will both have just turned 74 so it will be a nice little extra to celebrate that milestone, too.