A question for the future

[B25flyer]

Over a period of time aviation seems to make changes due to technical advances.
As such in the past certain "basics" of aviation that were once written in
stone have gone by the wayside.

So here is one for ya. Last week I started a student on the ground school
basics of cross country planing. Draw the line on the sectional from airport to
airport. Discuss all the wind, magnetic and other variables etc. After about 20
minutes into the discussion the students 13 year old daughter who was intently
watching asked the question. "Why do all that when I can do the same thing in
30 seconds on the handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the wind
correction"

Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as to
when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating there
will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the other
stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just put in airports/waypoints and go
for it.

Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?

Walt
Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines on sectionals.

[Brien K. Meehan]

B25flyer wrote:
> "Why do all that when I can do the same thing in
> 30 seconds on the handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the
wind
> correction"

Troll.

> Walt
> Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines on sectionals.
Yeah, right.

[G. Burkhart]

"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as
> to
> when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating
> there
> will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the
> other
> stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just put in airports/waypoints and
> go
> for it.
>
> Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?

Good question. Personally, I don't think that all planes will ever be GPS
equipped just as all the current flying planes don't have nav radios,
transponders or even electrical systems.

My aircraft doesn't have a transponder or a nav radio, haven't needed them,
yet. I do use a GPS for some of the navigation but mostly rely on dead
reckoning.

Keep drawing those lines on the sectionals and teaching it that way. GPS's
can go Tango Uniform and then where are you...

[Marco Leon]

My guess is that it will be well on its way of change when the new Cessna
172's and Piper Warriors coming out next year with the glass cockpits become
the standard "used aircraft" on the common market. Let's say, oh 20-30 years
or so. We are starting to see it with the TAA initiative and I suspect it
will gradually creep into the FAA mindset. We will also see training for
absolete navigational systems fall off the PTS one by one (the next probably
being NDB/ADF).

Marco Leon


"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Over a period of time aviation seems to make changes due to technical
advances.
> As such in the past certain "basics" of aviation that were once written in
> stone have gone by the wayside.
>
> So here is one for ya. Last week I started a student on the ground school
> basics of cross country planing. Draw the line on the sectional from
airport to
> airport. Discuss all the wind, magnetic and other variables etc. After
about 20
> minutes into the discussion the students 13 year old daughter who was
intently
> watching asked the question. "Why do all that when I can do the same thing
in
> 30 seconds on the handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the wind
> correction"
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as
to
> when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating
there
> will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the
other
> stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just put in airports/waypoints and
go
> for it.
>
> Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?
>
> Walt
> Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines on sectionals.

[C J Campbell]

"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as
to
> when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating
there
> will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the
other
> stuff for the X-C portion of the test.

Where is this requirement to draw a line or use an E6-B in the practical
test standards? It appears to me that the applicant could use FliteStar or
Cirrus or any other computer based flight planner. The applicant is required
to compute headings, fuel flow, etc. Nothing in the standard requires the
use of a whiz wheel or plotter. The FAA does not appear to care if the
applicant uses the E6-B, his Cray supercomputer, or a Ouija board. Now, that
said, I don't think it is necessarily true that using computer based flight
planning is any easier or less time consuming than doing it manually. The
answers had better be right. Anyway, here is the standard:

D. TASK: CROSS-COUNTRY FLIGHT PLANNING (ASEL and ASES)

REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 91; AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 61-84;

Navigation Charts; A/FD; AIM.

Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to cross-country flight

planning by presenting and explaining a pre-planned VFR crosscountry

flight, as previously assigned by the examiner. On the day of

the practical test, the final flight plan shall be to the first fuel stop,

based on maximum allowable passengers, baggage, and/or cargo

loads using real-time weather.

2. Uses appropriate and current aeronautical charts.

3. Properly identifies airspace, obstructions, and terrain features.

4. Selects easily identifiable en route checkpoints.

5. Selects most favorable altitudes considering weather conditions and

equipment capabilities.

6. Computes headings, flight time, and fuel requirements.

7. Selects appropriate navigation system/facilities and communication

frequencies.

8. Applies pertinent information from NOTAMs, AF/D, and other flight

publications.

9. Completes a navigation log and simulates filing a VFR flight plan.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, B25flyer > posted:
(mostly snipped for brevity)
> Over a period of time aviation seems to make changes due to technical
> advances. As such in the past certain "basics" of aviation that were
> once written in stone have gone by the wayside.
>
[...]
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops
> as to when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for
> any rating there will no longer be the requirment to draw the line
> and figure out all the other stuff for the X-C portion of the test.
> Just put in airports/waypoints and go for it.
>
IMO, this misses the point entirely. There are several important lessons
imbedded in the apparently simple task of X-C planning.

-- The basic idea of planning. Every aspect of the flight has to be taken
into consideration. For the instructor, I'd imagine that it would provide
some good insights into how the student is approaching aviation. Those
that would forego planning and rely on short-cuts can probably benefit
from *more* instruction, not less.

-- Tracking your progress on a chart is still a good practice. The
simplified GPS view is not all you need to know during an X-C. Even if the
GPS has terrain info, it's unlikely to include all of the details on a VFR
chart.

-- Bottom-line safety. Why teach "engine out" routines, when the
likelihood of an engine failure is fairly remote (I'd argue that an
electrical failure that would take out the GPS is more likely)?

I think that it's for good reason that the GPS is considered an addendum,
and not a replacement for other nav aids. There may be some point in the
future when this has changed, but it isn't here yet.

Regards,

Neil

[C J Campbell]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I think that it's for good reason that the GPS is considered an addendum,
> and not a replacement for other nav aids. There may be some point in the
> future when this has changed, but it isn't here yet.

There are no nav aids required for VFR other than a compass. You can use
your handheld GPS if you want and nothing else. GPS alone may not be used
for IFR flight, but WAAS is a stand-alone replacement for all other
navigation aids for IFR.

[C J Campbell]

"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
> watching asked the question. "Why do all that when I can do the same thing
in
> 30 seconds on the handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the wind
> correction"
>

Answering this question separately:

You can't pick up fuel enroute.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, C J Campbell > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>
>> I think that it's for good reason that the GPS is considered an
>> addendum, and not a replacement for other nav aids. There may be
>> some point in the future when this has changed, but it isn't here
>> yet.
>
> There are no nav aids required for VFR other than a compass.
>
That is pretty much my point. But, the only way the compass is useful
during VFR X-C is if you can do the rest of the planning. Wind, magnetic
variation, etc. can affect whether you'll get to where you want to go. The
X-C planning skill set is not just busy-work.

Neil

[G.R. Patterson III]

B25flyer wrote:
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as to
> when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating there
> will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the other
> stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just put in airports/waypoints and go
> for it.
>
> Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?

It'll stick around forever. We no longer teach things like radio ranges, but when the
electrons decide not to go down those wires, it'll be whatever we remember about
pilotage that gets us safely on the ground somewhere close to where we wanted to be.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Andrew Sarangan]

My prediction is that GPS will become a standard equipment in the
cockpit, and will replace the magnetic compass. Sure, the GPS can fail,
but those are technical issues which will eventually be solved, and the
GPS will become more reliable than a magnetic compass. My guess is that
it will be 10 years or more before it happens.

The concepts of magnetic variation and deviation arise entirely due to
our reliance on the magnetic compass. These will go away. We will not
rely on the magnetic north for navigation. We can use true north, which
will be a much cleaner system.

We would still need to calculate the effects of wind, not because of
wind correction angle, but for time enroute and fuel requirements.

The PTS does not demand that the applicant draw lines and do all the
calculations by hand. You can let a GPS do it, or use a computer. There
is no requirement that it be done by hand. Actually, it is high time we
stop focusing on that teach some of the modern ways of doing flight
planning. There are tons of online services and handheld computers that
can accomplish flight planning in a fraction of the time it takes to do
by hand.






(B25flyer) wrote in
:

>
> Over a period of time aviation seems to make changes due to technical
> advances. As such in the past certain "basics" of aviation that were
> once written in stone have gone by the wayside.
>
> So here is one for ya. Last week I started a student on the ground
> school basics of cross country planing. Draw the line on the sectional
> from airport to airport. Discuss all the wind, magnetic and other
> variables etc. After about 20 minutes into the discussion the students
> 13 year old daughter who was intently watching asked the question.
> "Why do all that when I can do the same thing in 30 seconds on the
> handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the wind correction"
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops
> as to when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for
> any rating there will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and
> figure out all the other stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just
> put in airports/waypoints and go for it.
>
> Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?
>
> Walt
> Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines on sectionals.

[Morgans]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote

> Troll.

You need to stick around for a bit longer, before you jump with a post like
this. I can assure you that the poster has been around for years, and is
not a troll.

Are you a troll?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004

[Brien K. Meehan]

Morgans wrote:
> > Troll.
>
> You need to stick around for a bit longer, before you jump with a
post like
> this. I can assure you that the poster has been around for years,
and is
> not a troll.

The post is a troll.

The GPS vs. pilotage "debate" is the most classic aviation newsgroup
troll material.

Every experienced CFI knows the value of weather and pilotage skills.
No experienced CFI would seriously wonder when it's going away. The
guy is either not an experienced CFI, or he's trolling.
> Are you a troll?

Only in appearance.

[Morgans]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote
>
> The GPS vs. pilotage "debate" is the most classic aviation newsgroup
> troll material.
>
> Every experienced CFI knows the value of weather and pilotage skills.
> No experienced CFI would seriously wonder when it's going away.

In your opinion.

There *is* a difference in bringing up a subject for discussion (even if it
has been beat to death), and bringing up a subject that is put forth to make
other people mad. (or crazy)

The latter is a troll. (In my opinion) <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/14/2004

[B25flyer]

>rom: "Brien K. Meehan"
>Date: 9/16/2004 12:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Morgans wrote:
>> > Troll.
>>
>> You need to stick around for a bit longer, before you jump with a
>post like
>> this. I can assure you that the poster has been around for years,
>and is
>> not a troll.
>
>The post is a troll.
>
>The GPS vs. pilotage "debate" is the most classic aviation newsgroup
>troll material.
>
>Every experienced CFI knows the value of weather and pilotage skills.
>No experienced CFI would seriously wonder when it's going away. The
>guy is either not an experienced CFI, or he's trolling.
>> Are you a troll?
>
>Only in appearance.

Mr Meehan

The origional question was asked as a point of discussion. It was meant to be
answered by people that have some sense of civility and experience in aviation
when it comes to the training of pilots.

In the past 4 months I have taught 2 ground schools to over 50 students. Not so
much as a final end to passing the private written but to introduce people from
age 13 to one person in there 80s.to the basics of flight and navigation. I
have done this pro-bono, free, for nothing, not a damn dime, and in the case of
one class at the Sun N Fun camp in Lakeland contibuted some of the material.

Now as to why you want to mouth off and call me a troll is strictly up to you.
But let me assure you the question was meant to be answered by people that have
some sense as to what is going on in aviation when it comes to training
students to get from point A to B. The question by the students daughter made
for a point of discussion and there for I posted it to get some opinions and
not smart a** remarks. I appreciate the comments that have been made, except
yours, and found that most agree that a GPS might fail and pilotage might just
save someone's butt some day..

As for the question of IF it would ever be removed from the written or the PTS
it was only that.....a question.

As for you remarks about my experience as a CFI. Been one since 1965 and have
instructed in J3s to transports and have held 11 FAA issued Check Airman
letters.

No I dont advertise as a "World Famous Flight Instructor" but just try and
teach students the basics and impart some knowledge learned from 42 years of
aviating.I am not going to list my hours and ratings because there are people
on here that have more. I am not going to try and impress anyone on this group.


Just try and be a little civil when someone asks a question and dont let your
smart mouth prove that you might be the troll.

Walt CFI 1602574

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> My prediction is that GPS will become a standard equipment in the
> cockpit, and will replace the magnetic compass. Sure, the GPS can
> fail, but those are technical issues which will eventually be solved,
> and the GPS will become more reliable than a magnetic compass. My
> guess is that it will be 10 years or more before it happens.
>
To paraphrase this idea; your prediction is that a GPS, which has
thousands of components with complex relationships and therefore countless
failure modes will become more reliable than a magnetic compass which has
only one failure mode -- the loss of fluid.

I doubt it seriously.

Neil

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
ink.net:

> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>> My prediction is that GPS will become a standard equipment in the
>> cockpit, and will replace the magnetic compass. Sure, the GPS can
>> fail, but those are technical issues which will eventually be solved,
>> and the GPS will become more reliable than a magnetic compass. My
>> guess is that it will be 10 years or more before it happens.
>>
> To paraphrase this idea; your prediction is that a GPS, which has
> thousands of components with complex relationships and therefore
> countless failure modes will become more reliable than a magnetic
> compass which has only one failure mode -- the loss of fluid.
>
> I doubt it seriously.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
>


The same thing was said about glass cockpits. Now even the ubiquitous
172 comes with a glass cockpit. It won't be long before the backup
vacuum driven gyros are removed from their panel.

You can't count the number of components in a circuit and assign failure
modes to each one of them. If that were the case, your computer will not
be able to run for even a minute. There are millions of transistors
inside your computer, with million different failure modes. The
traditional method of counting failure modes of mechanical parts do not
apply to highly integrated electronic products. Yes, there are a few
failure modes, but not as large as you make it out to be.

[Brien K. Meehan]

B25flyer wrote:

> The origional question was asked as a point of discussion. It was
meant to be
> answered by people that have some sense of civility and experience in
aviation
> when it comes to the training of pilots.

You don't get to pick who participates in a Usenet discussion.

> I
> have done this pro-bono, free, for nothing, not a damn dime, and in
the case of
> one class at the Sun N Fun camp in Lakeland contibuted some of the
material.

It's funny how often someone tries to use "free" as a preemption for
all criticism. That happens to be a peeve of mine, but that's aside.

> Now as to why you want to mouth off and call me a troll is strictly
up to you.

I called your post, not you, a troll, but yes, it is strictly up to me.

> But let me assure you the question was meant to be answered by people
that have
> some sense as to what is going on in aviation when it comes to
training
> students to get from point A to B.

Qualified people are already tired of this topic.

> The question by the students daughter made
> for a point of discussion and there for I posted it to get some
opinions and
> not smart a** remarks.

You don't get to pick what remarks are made in a Usenet discussion.

> I appreciate the comments that have been made, except
> yours, and found that most agree that a GPS might fail and pilotage
might just
> save someone's butt some day..

That's because it's obvious, and has already been beat to death.

> As for the question of IF it would ever be removed from the written
or the PTS
> it was only that.....a question.

All trolls are just questions.

> As for you remarks about my experience as a CFI. Been one since 1965
and have
> instructed in J3s to transports and have held 11 FAA issued Check
Airman
> letters.

I speculated that you're either not a CFI or this is a troll. If you
are a CFI, I'll stick with the latter.

> No I dont advertise as a "World Famous Flight Instructor" but just
try and
> teach students the basics and impart some knowledge learned from 42
years of
> aviating.I am not going to list my hours and ratings because there
are people
> on here that have more. I am not going to try and impress anyone on
this group.

Your credentials are actually very impressive.

> Just try and be a little civil when someone asks a question and dont
let your
> smart mouth prove that you might be the troll.

Try to grow a thicker skin, or at least a sense of humor, if you're
going to post trolls on Usenet. All I said was "Troll" and "Yeah,
right." There are certainly not offensive statements. It's not
"mouthing off." If anyone finds them uncivil, he's taking himself way
too seriously. If they're not applicable to the discussion, just skip
them.

[C Kingsbury]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> > Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> The same thing was said about glass cockpits. Now even the ubiquitous
> 172 comes with a glass cockpit. It won't be long before the backup
> vacuum driven gyros are removed from their panel.

And with good reason: just as transistors proved more reliable than
vacuum tubes, solid-state AHRS look to be far more reliable than their
replacement. There's a huge benefit to safety, utility, and ultimately
cost by making the move.

However, I would not want to give up the non-powered wet compass,
altimeter, and airspeed indicator completely. Not until we prove that
mice can't chew through wires, etc. What's the benefit of tossing
these completely?

Likewise, I suspect navigating by reference to magnetic north will be
one of those charming anachronisms that our descendants 2000 years ago
will talk about in the same way that people today talk about how
railroad gauges were based on roman roads. (I know it's true only in a
loose sense, no need to rehash that here)

> You can't count the number of components in a circuit and assign failure
> modes to each one of them. If that were the case, your computer will not
> be able to run for even a minute. There are millions of transistors
> inside your computer, with million different failure modes. The
> traditional method of counting failure modes of mechanical parts do not
> apply to highly integrated electronic products. Yes, there are a few
> failure modes, but not as large as you make it out to be.

Um, I'm calling bull**** on this assertion. Isn't the real key here
that the odds of a particular part (say a transistor gate inside a
CPU) failing are simply infinitesimally small? Because if one
capacitor on your PC motherboard smokes out, it's quite likely that
the whole shebang will in fact not work properly.

Best,
-cwk.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Likewise, I suspect navigating by reference to magnetic north will be
> one of those charming anachronisms that our descendants 2000 years ago
> will talk about in the same way that people today talk about how
> railroad gauges were based on roman roads. (I know it's true only in a
> loose sense, no need to rehash that here)

Actually, it's not true at all.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Andrew Sarangan]

(C Kingsbury) wrote in
om:

> Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
>> ink.net:
>>
>> > Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>> The same thing was said about glass cockpits. Now even the ubiquitous
>> 172 comes with a glass cockpit. It won't be long before the backup
>> vacuum driven gyros are removed from their panel.
>
> And with good reason: just as transistors proved more reliable than
> vacuum tubes, solid-state AHRS look to be far more reliable than their
> replacement. There's a huge benefit to safety, utility, and ultimately
> cost by making the move.
>
> However, I would not want to give up the non-powered wet compass,
> altimeter, and airspeed indicator completely. Not until we prove that
> mice can't chew through wires, etc. What's the benefit of tossing
> these completely?
>
> Likewise, I suspect navigating by reference to magnetic north will be
> one of those charming anachronisms that our descendants 2000 years ago
> will talk about in the same way that people today talk about how
> railroad gauges were based on roman roads. (I know it's true only in a
> loose sense, no need to rehash that here)
>
>> You can't count the number of components in a circuit and assign
>> failure modes to each one of them. If that were the case, your
>> computer will not be able to run for even a minute. There are
>> millions of transistors inside your computer, with million different
>> failure modes. The traditional method of counting failure modes of
>> mechanical parts do not apply to highly integrated electronic
>> products. Yes, there are a few failure modes, but not as large as you
>> make it out to be.
>
> Um, I'm calling bull**** on this assertion. Isn't the real key here
> that the odds of a particular part (say a transistor gate inside a
> CPU) failing are simply infinitesimally small? Because if one
> capacitor on your PC motherboard smokes out, it's quite likely that
> the whole shebang will in fact not work properly.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.



The real key is that all the transistors on a chip are made on the same
substrate. They share all the same characteristics. The failure of one
transistor is not an uncorrelated event from another transistor failing.
They all fail more or less at once, or they all continue to function.
They behave as single component. Just because there are millions of
transistor on a chip does not mean that there are millions of different
failure modes. There are only a handful of failure modes regardless of
the number of transistors on the chip. This is what is fundamentally
different about integrated circuits compared to discrete circuits.

[The Weiss Family]

"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Over a period of time aviation seems to make changes due to technical
advances.
> As such in the past certain "basics" of aviation that were once written in
> stone have gone by the wayside.
>
> So here is one for ya. Last week I started a student on the ground school
> basics of cross country planing. Draw the line on the sectional from
airport to
> airport. Discuss all the wind, magnetic and other variables etc. After
about 20
> minutes into the discussion the students 13 year old daughter who was
intently
> watching asked the question. "Why do all that when I can do the same thing
in
> 30 seconds on the handheld GPS and enroute it will take care of the wind
> correction"
>
> Got me to thinking. So question is, what is the opinion of the troops as
to
> when the system will change and as part of the written/PTS for any rating
there
> will no longer be the requirment to draw the line and figure out all the
other
> stuff for the X-C portion of the test. Just put in airports/waypoints and
go
> for it.
>
> Five years? Ten years? Or will it stick around forever?
>
> Walt
> Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines on sectionals.

Interesting question...
I'm a pretty new PP-ASEL, and somewhat of a technology junkie.
I'm in the process of purchasing my 1st airplane.
I pick it up in about 2 weeks.
It's in TX, and I'm in NV...about 1200nm.
The plane comes with a GPS, so I'll use it.
I've also planned the trip to intersect every VOR (or a radial) along the
way.
I've also drawn the line across four different sectional charts.
My thinking is that if something goes wrong with the GPS, I can use the
VORs.
And I ALWAYS like to look outside and say, "Yup, there's that dry lake bed,
just like on the chart".
I actually drew the lines on the chart first, then got the waypoints to put
into the GPS...

Another poster mentioned that a GPS can go tango uniform, which is true...
If I was stuck in a plane without a chart, I'd want TWO completely redundant
GPS units...

Adam

[Capt.Doug]

>"B25flyer" wrote in message > Forty+ years as a CFI and still drawing lines
>on sectionals.

Still drawing lines on sectionals?
I simply fold the chart along the courseline. That way, I don't have to buy
a new one for years.

D. (What's the kid going to do when the magic box craps out and she doesn't
know the basics?)

[Teacherjh]

>>
Still drawing lines on sectionals?

I simply fold the chart along the courseline.
<<

Been flying since 1980 and I never thought of that!

To answer the underlying question (why not let the GPS do all your flight
planning) I'd ask back why not let the autopilot do all the flying, and take a
snooze in the back seat?

1) charts have few catastrophic failure modes
2) perusing the chart before a flight alerts me to special use airspace, high
towers, terrain, stuff like that (especially important when one flies low, as I
am wont to do)
3) it's part of the fun of flying - doing it yourself as opposed to
surrendering to something by Garmin
4) what you've planned yourself you'll recognize more easily than what's
handed to you on a screen.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[mhteas]

GPS can fail for a variety of reasons, not all are "technical issues
which will eventually be solved". Interference is a growing issue for
example. Batteries die, wired connectors stop connecting, and
sometimes electronic components just plain stop working. Don't get me
wrong, I like the GPS, I think it's pretty useful and cool as well.
But, being a belt-and-suspenders man, I like having and knowing how to
use backups too.

While the PTS may not require doing calculations by hand, examiners can
and do "fail" GPS devices and expect the applicant to perform well no
matter what. As would your passengers if this happened in real life.
-Malcolm Teas