Old school vs new school...
- Thread starter Goonie
- Start date
JDE
Well-Known Member
Talking on a Motorola StarTac instead of a BlackBerry. (That StarTac was a good phone though!)
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
Does that mean my mesh half jersey is old school also? Damn!
Goonie
Never say die
Thanks Jason!
Someone who finally understands what I am trying to say.
I love the old school stuff. Thats all they had when I learned. Nothing wrong with flying a 500nm x-country with the autopilot on and the whole flight plan loaded in the MFD. It doesn't make you less of a man I promise.....
P.S I love the Toadies! Saw them a couple months ago in concert. It brought me back 15 years ago at the Engine Room when there was only 15 people in the audience.
JDE
Well-Known Member
I'm planning on going to Possum Kingdom Lake Labor Day weekend for Dia De Los Toadies. It's a one day event - Aug 31st. Only $25 for tickets and there are some other bands playing too. Wanna go?:nana2:
tonyw
Well-Known Member
I like flying by looking out the window.
But, I will say this. If I ever finish up my instrument rating, you can be sure if it comes down to using the steam gauges versus GPS, it's going to be GPS all the way.
A VOR can be up to four degrees off and it's still good enough to be used.
A GPS is going to be just about dead on.
If I'm flying in hard IMC, I am going to use the more accurate tool every single time.
But, I will say this. If I ever finish up my instrument rating, you can be sure if it comes down to using the steam gauges versus GPS, it's going to be GPS all the way.
A VOR can be up to four degrees off and it's still good enough to be used.
A GPS is going to be just about dead on.
If I'm flying in hard IMC, I am going to use the more accurate tool every single time.
Goonie
Never say die
Yep!
VOR-As and NDBs are fun as hell to fly. When I have my family on the plane I'll take the ILS or GPS WAAS approach!
germb747
Well-Known Member
With all that said, I've seen it both ways. In other words, old timers who are very comfortable with the old methods who are very resistant to change and simply refuse to embrace the new technology. Some of it's institutional too. We're just now starting to get on board with the RNAV stuff in the Air Force. On my training tables (currency requirements) for this half, I was required to do 2 NDB approaches, but not required (or allowed) to do a single GPS approach. I think this is changing next half and we're gradually getting people spun up with a special sign off. It'll probably be a while before I'm more comfortable with a GPS than I am with a TACAN approach, but I appreciate the necessity to be versed in both the fundamentals (first) and then become proficient with the latest industry trends.
L-16B
Well-Known Member
I used to pull the database card out of the gps for students on their cross countries.
Any examiner that lets you use your autopilot during a checkride other than momentarily is a moron. I understand if he wants to put it on and yall talk about a situation or he helps explain something, but cmon, thats ridiculous.
Any examiner that lets you use your autopilot during a checkride other than momentarily is a moron. I understand if he wants to put it on and yall talk about a situation or he helps explain something, but cmon, thats ridiculous.
Goonie
Never say die
Even the solo ones?
Do you teach them GPS at all?
When was the last time you sat down and did a VFR cross-country? (not training anyone)
Mine was for my commercial training. I file IFR everywhere I go unless its gonna be some sorta scenic flight.
We are so hellbent on teaching them pilotage and dead reckoning, and the chances of them using it ever again are very slim.
I'm not against teaching it at all. I'm just a realist and most people get an instrument raiting as soon as they're done with their private. Soon instrument flying will be all GPS WAAS. Thats why the "I'm gonna teach you NDBs! Thats some real flying!" attitude is also a huge diservice.
Goonie
Never say die
Yeah they're easy and fun...just not as accurate or practical.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Seems as though I'm walking in to this thread a few days late...
It appears as though many of the posters haven't read the PTS word for word lately. I'd recommend becoming very familiar with it before making judgements as to what an examiner can, should, or is required to do on a checkride. Hint--examiners who conduct 100% of the checkride *without* the use of the autopilot are wrong, and those who conduct 100% of the checkride *with* the autopilot are wrong, too.
I'd also recommend everyone stop and think about various scenarios before making blanket statements as to what is or isn't important to learn. I think about it every day in my work as a CFI.
Trust me, this is an important debate with no easy answers. I just finished training an instrument student in his C-182RG. It had a Sandel electronic HSI, autopilot, G430, ADF, two ILS receivers, DME, and multitude of other equipment.
In the flight school planes, I also teach primary and instrument students in the art of flying "steam gauges" as well as the G1000 glass panels. Certain failures and predicaments a pilot might find themself in while flying a conventional panel may or may not even be possible in the G1000 panel, and vice versa. As an instructor, I have to ask myself, "In the real world, what is most likely to happen to this pilot? What problems are they actually going to face?"
For instance, it's pointless to teach a pilot using a G1000 panel how to handle a vacuum pump failure--the system doesn't even use a vacuum pump. However, it's very important to train them on how to handle problems with the electrical system or what to do if one or both screens go dark in the clouds--things pilots of conventional panel aircraft don't have to consider.
Is one pilot better or worse? Not really, just different. In my book, as long as they know how to fly the plane they're flying and can handle anything that might go wrong in that plane, they're a good pilot. There are certain universal truths that need to get taught no matter what ("aviate, navigate, communicate," for instance), but when it comes down to specific equipment and how that pilot intends to use the equipment, everything becomes a lot more grey.
It appears as though many of the posters haven't read the PTS word for word lately. I'd recommend becoming very familiar with it before making judgements as to what an examiner can, should, or is required to do on a checkride. Hint--examiners who conduct 100% of the checkride *without* the use of the autopilot are wrong, and those who conduct 100% of the checkride *with* the autopilot are wrong, too.
I'd also recommend everyone stop and think about various scenarios before making blanket statements as to what is or isn't important to learn. I think about it every day in my work as a CFI.
Trust me, this is an important debate with no easy answers. I just finished training an instrument student in his C-182RG. It had a Sandel electronic HSI, autopilot, G430, ADF, two ILS receivers, DME, and multitude of other equipment.
In the flight school planes, I also teach primary and instrument students in the art of flying "steam gauges" as well as the G1000 glass panels. Certain failures and predicaments a pilot might find themself in while flying a conventional panel may or may not even be possible in the G1000 panel, and vice versa. As an instructor, I have to ask myself, "In the real world, what is most likely to happen to this pilot? What problems are they actually going to face?"
For instance, it's pointless to teach a pilot using a G1000 panel how to handle a vacuum pump failure--the system doesn't even use a vacuum pump. However, it's very important to train them on how to handle problems with the electrical system or what to do if one or both screens go dark in the clouds--things pilots of conventional panel aircraft don't have to consider.
Is one pilot better or worse? Not really, just different. In my book, as long as they know how to fly the plane they're flying and can handle anything that might go wrong in that plane, they're a good pilot. There are certain universal truths that need to get taught no matter what ("aviate, navigate, communicate," for instance), but when it comes down to specific equipment and how that pilot intends to use the equipment, everything becomes a lot more grey.
Goonie
Never say die
Good post!
Just to elaborate when I said the examiner uses the autopilot the whole checkride I was a little misleading. He uses it most of the time but hand flies the ILS and partial panel approach.
One of my students just earned his private Wednesday and today went on his first x- country with his wife to get some BBQ at KSEP (MMMM). I asked how the flight planning went and he told me "eh, I just used the GPS (G1000)."
Just to elaborate when I said the examiner uses the autopilot the whole checkride I was a little misleading. He uses it most of the time but hand flies the ILS and partial panel approach.
One of my students just earned his private Wednesday and today went on his first x- country with his wife to get some BBQ at KSEP (MMMM). I asked how the flight planning went and he told me "eh, I just used the GPS (G1000)."
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Good God, we might have been at the same show....
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Been following this thread with interest...
My CFI was kind of an old-school guy. We didn't have GPS in the plane I learned in, and only one VOR receiver, so he was really, really big on pilotage. I've found that I'm uncomfortable now without doing a flight plan and timing my checkpoints. It just feels like something's missing.
And that's what it comes down to. If you're training a career guy, it might not be advisable to teach him things like vacuum pump failures. But a guy like me who takes perverse pleasure in renting as many different planes as he can...well...it's helpful to be cross-trained in all kinds of scenarios.
I never set out to be a pilot. I've always wanted to be an aviator. If it becomes a career, that's cool. But if it doesn't, that's okay, too. I'd rather my skills develop. I want to be THAT GUY - the guy who can fly anything, anytime, anywhere.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it's a good one right now.
My CFI was kind of an old-school guy. We didn't have GPS in the plane I learned in, and only one VOR receiver, so he was really, really big on pilotage. I've found that I'm uncomfortable now without doing a flight plan and timing my checkpoints. It just feels like something's missing.
And that's what it comes down to. If you're training a career guy, it might not be advisable to teach him things like vacuum pump failures. But a guy like me who takes perverse pleasure in renting as many different planes as he can...well...it's helpful to be cross-trained in all kinds of scenarios.
I never set out to be a pilot. I've always wanted to be an aviator. If it becomes a career, that's cool. But if it doesn't, that's okay, too. I'd rather my skills develop. I want to be THAT GUY - the guy who can fly anything, anytime, anywhere.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it's a good one right now.
Been following this thread with interest...
My CFI was kind of an old-school guy. We didn't have GPS in the plane I learned in, and only one VOR receiver, so he was really, really big on pilotage. I've found that I'm uncomfortable now without doing a flight plan and timing my checkpoints. It just feels like something's missing.
And that's what it comes down to. If you're training a career guy, it might not be advisable to teach him things like vacuum pump failures. But a guy like me who takes perverse pleasure in renting as many different planes as he can...well...it's helpful to be cross-trained in all kinds of scenarios.
I never set out to be a pilot. I've always wanted to be an aviator. If it becomes a career, that's cool. But if it doesn't, that's okay, too. I'd rather my skills develop. I want to be THAT GUY - the guy who can fly anything, anytime, anywhere.
Maybe it's a pipe dream, but it's a good one right now.
That's hott!
germb747
Well-Known Member
You have to strike a balance. While I don't advocate a "one size fits all approach" (meaning I realize everyone has a unique learning style), I would caution CFIs that your job at the PPL level is to instill the basic fundamentals all pilots need to grasp without getting into the mindset of "this guy is a career pilot so there's no need to waste much time with all the GA stuff" or "this guy will never fly glass" or "all this guy will fly is glass". How do you know how a pilot's career (professionally or otherwise) will progress? At the end of the day, he'll be rated as a "Private Pilot--Single Engine Land" and needs to have the same skill set as anyone else with that qualification. Maybe you'll train him in a Garmin 1000 equipped airplane, only to find out years later he bought himself a 1978 Skyhawk and has little clue what a vacuum system is.