"Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry... with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?"
This was what I was getting at...
Several years ago Middle Tennessee State University went to all-digital cockpits in their FW trainers marrying this change with revised training protocols combining the PP and IR curriculum. They found that the new digital curriculum had different bottlenecks (repeated lessons/flights) than the traditional system. One such bottleneck in the traditional system was cross-country navigation, pilots trained in the analog cockpit normally needed extra time but those trained in the digital breezed right through. So I have another friend at a different uni that did the same shortly after. That program is currently in the process of gathering data on efficacy of training and have found that by IR pilots trained in the digital systems are "practically unable to use the analog instruments [ie perform navigation tasks without GPS, etc.] compared to their ability to use glass." I've observed in the simulator these students maintained their SA externally rather than internally. Not a big issue now as these students are still in the training environment by this is something we should keep our eye on as they progress through the industry.
Not to bash GPS or other digital systems, I think bringing more data/cues into the cockpit, especially regarding terrain and obstructions is a good thing. I just think we need to be aware of the impications of our decisions.
Reference the GPS question, I was a radar controller when GPS was initially introduced into GA aircraft. We immediately saw a jump in airspace busts - pilots would punch in airport A and airport B then fly the straight line between, disregarding any restricted, MOA and Class B airspace along the way. It became quite easy to recognize who was navigating in this manner, allowing us to have escorts in place PRIOR to the most aggregious violations (which at the time would result in confiscation of the aircraft and detention of any on board). The increase in national security TFRs has helped with awareness but violations continue to occur.
Shappell and Weigman have done an HF review of US GA CFIT accidents, it's available on their website (
www.hfacs.com, look under publications). They report a common pattern to the CFIT accidents that wasn't present in the non-CFIT events, it's an interesting read and might add to this discussion.