Old school vs new school...

Goonie

Never say die
So there have been some debates on here about "old school vs new school" ways of doing things.

I think their can be a good marriage of both techniques. Nothing gets me more angry when I see new pilots and instructors shortcutting pilotage and dead reckoning but at the same time I cant stand the "I dont need to know how to use the stupid GPS, back in my day....".

GPS has been the greatest invention to aeriel navigation and situational awarness since the first flight. The problem is students use it as their woobie, and wont get into a plane without one. Thats why I like to make them turn the damn thing off for the first leg of their cross-countries and learn how to use them for navigation on the second leg. Things tend to go wrong in the airplane with a student pilot and I wont to make sure they know how to use the GPS to get back.

As for the "back in my day..." crowd they need to get over it!! Its 2008 and technology in GA is getting cheaper and advancing at a staggering rate. Its sad to say but the round dials will be a thing of memory in the near future.

I cant stand the crusty old DPE that says "I'll turn that damn GPS off during an Instrument checkride". The fact is they dont know how to use the damn things and have to much pride to have an instructor show them how to use them. I stay away from them. We do have a DPE that lets you use GPS and autopilot for the whole instrument ride.

I guess my point is that the "old school vs new school" debate is really a waste of time. Like it or not new school is what keeps Cessna and other small GA manufactures in business. Better get used to being a button pusher.... :)
 

bdhill1979

Gone West
You hit the nail right on the head.

To me it is not about "old versus new"; but more along the lines of learn the old, then add the new making a pilot that has numerous tools and resources to use. Like I said in the other thread: as my student you will learn pilotage and dead reckoning before the VOR or GPS is even discussed, but you will be thoroughly versed in all the systems available to you by the time I am done with you.

Well rounded is the idea.
 

MikeFavinger

Hubschrauber Flieger
Slightly off topic:

When I went through military flight training many of my instructors were old as dirt and used to instruct when it was truly "old school." They got a little gleam in their eyes when they told stories about how they used to carry a little stick in the cockpit and would use it to hit the students whenever they were off altitude or airspeed.

I for one was happy it wasn't "old school" training any longer. ;)
 

bike21

9-5 Ruins Lives
Great point! I couldn't agree more. Both extreme viewpoints get very annoying when in reality we as airmen (ladies included) need every trick of the trade at our disposal. I can't count that number of times that technology and good ol' airmanship has saved my bacon :)
 

Texasspilot

New Member
Just remember what type of student your teaching and that most GA airplanes are still single vor/ndb or VFR only, non-autopilot, and many still dont have a hand held GPS.

Teaching a student who plans to fly this type of airplane nothing but GPS programming and direct to is doing a great disservice to them.

Because many of us here went to a professional training program via college or large FBO we lose sight of the fact that general aviation is in every nook and cranny of every state in every old airport out there. And most of those airplanes are not 2008 whizbang bugsmasher 10,000's.

An airline track student you might want to spend more time on GPS and how to use the autopilot smartly in an IFR enviroment.

Teaching a non airline track guy the same skills does him essentially no good.

And a DPE that lets student use autopilot and GPS for the whole instrument checkride should be fired. He essentially not testing anything except for a students ability to program the box which they dont even need to get in the air to do.
 

Bandit_Driver

Gold Member
Well said Texaspilot.

IMO and back when I was giving instruction I always taught with the GPS or Loran off until the student was proficient or at least has a solid understanding of the old school way. I then introduced them to the technology and how to use it effeciently.

I saw a lot of guys that came in for an IPC and when I shut the GPS off 1/2 through the ride had no idea where the airport was and were flustered by the fact that it was off.

If you can fly the plane and have SA without the whizbang toys then those toys just make the job easier later in the game.

Not all the airlines are fly advanced aircraft. Just look at NWA and their DC-9 fleet. NO GPS/FMS. It is all airways and round dials.

my .02.
 

Matt13C

Well-Known Member
I love flying by pilotage and dead reckoning myself. But I can see how people who just want to run through training and get to the airlines might not like it. If you buy into all the hype you would think you can simply get through training, fly as a CFI for a few hours then step into the right seat of a CRJ sporting the latest glass panel display. You will then spend your career flying at 35,000 feet.

Obviously that is not the case and the CFI needs to get that message into the students head. If he does not he is only teaching half of what you should learn as a private pilot.
 

tgrayson

New Member
ryanmickG said:
I think their can be a good marriage of both techniques.
Can't really work that way unless you want to greatly extend the time allowed for training. In reality, you have to choose. If you try to squeeze in old school and new school, the student will receive half the training in each he would otherwise have gotten.

You may argue that a little training is better than none, but I'm not sure that's the case. Lightly learned subjects will soon be forgotten, whereas things learned to mastery will be maintained for a long time. By trying to teach too much, you can end up teaching too little.

Like it or not, the old must make room for the new. The old timers scream and stomp their feet, but progress is achieved as they die off, and the disaster they predict never happens. Learn from that.

Note that in the instrument PTS, partial panel skills have been replaced by "failure of primary flight display." That means partial panel for a steam gauge airplane, but pilots in more modern aircraft may never do compass turns. NDB approaches used to be mandatory, then became one option of many, now are all but impossible to do. The removal of spins from the private syllabus still incites arguments, but hasn't had any discernible impact on pilot safety or skill. Tailwheel training occurs very infrequently, but we still are able to produce a few excellent pilots ever year.

Technology has made some skills obsolete, and it's a sign of being an old fuddy-duddy if you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.;) I can see the day when our all-glass cockpits are so reliable that pilot and dead reckoning could be removed from private training and replaced by something more useful, like increased study of regulations. :)

Embrace change and stay young for the rest of your life.
 

ctab5060X

Well-Known Member
Just remember what type of student your teaching and that most GA airplanes are still single vor/ndb or VFR only, non-autopilot, and many still dont have a hand held GPS.

Teaching a student who plans to fly this type of airplane nothing but GPS programming and direct to is doing a great disservice to them.

Because many of us here went to a professional training program via college or large FBO we lose sight of the fact that general aviation is in every nook and cranny of every state in every old airport out there. And most of those airplanes are not 2008 whizbang bugsmasher 10,000's.

An airline track student you might want to spend more time on GPS and how to use the autopilot smartly in an IFR enviroment.

Teaching a non airline track guy the same skills does him essentially no good.

And a DPE that lets student use autopilot and GPS for the whole instrument checkride should be fired. He essentially not testing anything except for a students ability to program the box which they dont even need to get in the air to do.
Excellent post.

I think we all lose sight that a fair chunk of GA aircraft are not new and still have steam gauges and no autopilots.

As far as the DPE is concerned, that is just wrong. What is the pilot demonstrating by letting the autopilot fly the airplane? Absolutely nothing. Are they getting some sort of special issuance of the IR that says "autopilot approved"? I think not. Isn't the point of a checkride to evaluate the pilots ability to fly the airplane to PTS standards and not to evaluate the airplanes ability to fly itself?


As for the "back in my day..." crowd they need to get over it!! Its 2008 and technology in GA is getting cheaper and advancing at a staggering rate. Its sad to say but the round dials will be a thing of memory in the near future.
Actually it is not. Yes, the technology is getting cheaper, and GPS is still the latest and "greatest invention", but what has come since then? Let's face it, GPS has been around for several decades now, it is not something new to the world. The only things that have changed are how we utilize the technology and the availability of the technology.

As far as the "back in my day..." crowd, you are welcome at my place any time. Can't learn where you are going until you know where you have been.

I guess my point is that the "old school vs new school" debate is really a waste of time. Like it or not new school is what keeps Cessna and other small GA manufactures in business. Better get used to being a button pusher.... :)
That is part of the problem with some of the pilots these days. They become button pushers before they ever learn to be aviators.;)
 

germb747

Well-Known Member
I can see the day when our all-glass cockpits are so reliable that pilot and dead reckoning could be removed from private training and replaced by something more useful, like increased study of regulations. :)
Removed over my cold dead body :D

Learn to aviate first, then learn how to use the gizmos
 

Ozelot

Frozen Tundra TRACON
You hit the nail right on the head.

To me it is not about "old versus new"; but more along the lines of learn the old, then add the new making a pilot that has numerous tools and resources to use. Like I said in the other thread: as my student you will learn pilotage and dead reckoning before the VOR or GPS is even discussed, but you will be thoroughly versed in all the systems available to you by the time I am done with you.

Well rounded is the idea.
That's what my instructor did for me as well. I'm happy that he took the time to make sure I knew how to utilize everything in my arsenal.
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Actually it is not. Yes, the technology is getting cheaper, and GPS is still the latest and "greatest invention", but what has come since then? Let's face it, GPS has been around for several decades now, it is not something new to the world. The only things that have changed are how we utilize the technology and the availability of the technology.
I would argue that the systems integration has been the sea change. Instead of having multiple purpose-built devices all giving you information that must be mentally correlated, we have integrated systems now which give you navigation, terrain, weather, communcations and engine performance information in a cleaner, more easily understood format.

GPS has been around for decades, yes, but it's far easier to use and has greater utility than before.
 

ctab5060X

Well-Known Member
I would argue that the systems integration has been the sea change. Instead of having multiple purpose-built devices all giving you information that must be mentally correlated, we have integrated systems now which give you navigation, terrain, weather, communcations and engine performance information in a cleaner, more easily understood format.

GPS has been around for decades, yes, but it's far easier to use and has greater utility than before.
Like I said, how we utilize the technology...

Having the cleaner format is definitely better, but all these new whizbang gadgets are only making one thing clear...they are going to break.
 

Goonie

Never say die
Actually it is not. Yes, the technology is getting cheaper, and GPS is still the latest and "greatest invention", but what has come since then? Let's face it, GPS has been around for several decades now, it is not something new to the world. The only things that have changed are how we utilize the technology and the availability of the technology.
What has come since?

Besides the fact that GPS technology has advanced 10 fold in the past 5 years, we have gone from 2.5 inch displays of the KLN 89 to full glass cockpits. Soon 172's will be equiped with synthetic vision.

Not saying that I fully embrace all this technology, hell I would love to train people in J3s and Decathalons full time. The fact is the starry eyed insipring pilot goes flight school shopping and sees all the bells and wistles of the G1000 and thinks he is going to be at a big advantage flying these things.

Look at Trade a Plane these days and you can find about 5 152's for sell. Compared to 5 years ago and there was two pages full of them. The old 152's and 70's 172s are an endangered species.
 

Goonie

Never say die
Like I said, how we utilize the technology...

Having the cleaner format is definitely better, but all these new whizbang gadgets are only making one thing clear...they are going to break.
We have shelves full of broken altimeters, VSIs, attitude indicators, vacuum pumps....

;)

I think a lot of people mis-understood the sentiment of my post...
 

Patrick

Well-Known Member
I see both sides of this. If its in the plane, you should be teaching how to use it. However, as has been mentioned, the reality is that most of the GA fleet are not brand new airplanes with synthetic vision and a flight director.

There is some truth to the idea of teaching given the intended use of the training (professional pilot track vs private aircraft owner, for example) but what happens when the guy who started training in a glass panel 172 with the expectation that he was going to start flying a CRJ when he finishes, but then gives up on aviation as a career and buys a 1960 Cherokee to fly for fun and has never seen a round dial with the exception of the backup instruments?

I certainly advocate teaching proper autopilot use, especially if its a student who owns their own plane, as they should know how to use everything in the panel to help with situation awareness and promote safe flying. But, I'll agree that a DPE that lets a student do the whole ride that way is doing a great disservice.

In summary, I think its best to teach all aspects- both new and old. Even for professional pilots, there are still plenty of guys flying big jets with nothing more than VOR navigation.
 

CoffeeIcePapers

Well-Hung Member
I see both sides of this. If its in the plane, you should be teaching how to use it. However, as has been mentioned, the reality is that most of the GA fleet are not brand new airplanes with synthetic vision and a flight director.

There is some truth to the idea of teaching given the intended use of the training (professional pilot track vs private aircraft owner, for example) but what happens when the guy who started training in a glass panel 172 with the expectation that he was going to start flying a CRJ when he finishes, but then gives up on aviation as a career and buys a 1960 Cherokee to fly for fun and has never seen a round dial with the exception of the backup instruments?

I certainly advocate teaching proper autopilot use, especially if its a student who owns their own plane, as they should know how to use everything in the panel to help with situation awareness and promote safe flying. But, I'll agree that a DPE that lets a student do the whole ride that way is doing a great disservice.

In summary, I think its best to teach all aspects- both new and old. Even for professional pilots, there are still plenty of guys flying big jets with nothing more than VOR navigation.
Good post!

I usually train students different. If I get the hobbyist that is going to get his private for fun I will spend a lot of time with him and teach him every aspect I can about flying.

If I get the indian student who doesnt care or respect flying in the first place and is just doing it because its a good job. (there are a bunch of these people) I just go into checkride profile mode and try to get them done ASAP.
 

Boris Badenov

Let's get this thing on the hump!
Approaches are still flown by plates. Plates (er, sorry, TERPS, or whatever) still require you to be able to know where you are in three dimensional space without a box smacking your hand when you do something stupid. Airliners still fly ILS, small airports still have VOR (or NDB) circling approaches. The ones that I've seen that do have GPS approaches still have old school non-precision approaches. At this point, GPS is still a backup. Wave the banner of progress all you like when GPS is the navigational solution of choice. Right now it's a backup. Nice if you have it, no impediment if you don't. Therefore, when one is doing their PRIMARY training, one ought to learn how to fly the way GOD INTENDED. Just kidding. But one ought to learn how to fly with the aides that are time tested in the system that still exists. Sure, you can get direct destination most of the time, but what happens when they give you a full route clearance full of airways and SID/STARS? If you never turned off the GPS in your instrument training, you'll be at sea. You know it as well as I do. Even if I have a GPS, if someone assigns me a GPS approach, I can say "unable". Can you say "unable" to a full-procedure ILS to minimums?

Sorry, children. When next-generation navigation becomes the order of the day, it'll be you at the front of the line and me at the back trying to catch up. But until then, learn how to fly in the system we've got or you're going to embarrass (or worse) yourself.

PS. I hear the service is hiring UAV appliance-operators for those who want to be button-pushers. See your recruiter for details.
 

adreamer

Well-Known Member
Good post. :)

Use whatever you have in the plane. Technology is there for "situation awareness." ;)

An interesting flight I did not too long ago, I had to execute ILS approach to minimum then circle to land maneuver with fully load pax in the back. :p Good time. :D

ps: hand fly all the way for that approach while made sure runway is at my 230 position. :rolleyes:
 

JDE

Well-Known Member
I'm with Ryan on this one. Technology is here to stay, and it's only going to improve. More and more new airplanes come out with all this technology, and there are plenty of older airplanes out there with lots of technology. It's important to learn how to use the equipment in the airplane you're flying. If a student learns how to fly in an airplane with a glass cockpit, they would be doing themselves a huge disservice by not getting instruction in an airplane with round dials if they intend on flying a round dial equipped airplane. But there are plenty of students (namely those with a lot more money than me) who have no intention of flying an airplane with round dials...so why make them learn how to fly one?

There are still skills that need to be learned in order to fly an airplane - i.e. dead reckoning, pilotage, etc... but welcome to 2008.
 
Top