Pretty hillarious how a question about track crawling results in a discussion about ocean crossing navigation methods... Love this place!
Seeing as I was the one that introduced the oceanic, I'll respond to that.
The topic is "track crawling," which apparently means pilotage. The art of flying by correlating what's on map with what you see out the window. It's the most basic form of navigation, and accordingly, one of the most important skills to have. All the golly-gee-whiz-bang gizmos in the cockpt don't make up for the basics.
I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would condemn a pilot for using pilotage. I made a comparison with flying a B747 on oceanic routes to show that while we do have all the gear on board, we still use basic navigation skills, and still use the same tools that most students and private pilots right here use. In other words, these basic skills that some might put down in favor of their garmin handeld, are still very important even when one has far more sophisticated equipment. Basic navigation skills still form the basis of getting from A to B.
If "track crawling" is about basic pilotage (and by default dead reckoning, which falls right in line with pilotage as an elementary skill every student pilot should have mastered long before certification...why on earth is anyone condemning it as inappropriate or even questioning it's place? The need to be conversant in those skills never goes away.
Blimey, just doing a rough diversion on your lap in a C152 while flying is tricky. I imagine using a whizzwheel and plotting accurate courses while flying a Cherokee is, um, 'interesting'
It shouldn't be; it's the basis of how you get from A to B. Even with a VOR or GPS to guide the way, you still need to understand those basics. Even while flying a single pilot airplane alone in the mountains, I have a small metal E6B tucked in a flight suit pocket, and I use it. You could use an electronic calculator to do the same, of course, but the batteries have never failed on that little E6B; basics.