CFIs: how do you "teach" with EFBs?

[Ryan F.]

CFIs, I would like your thoughts and opinions. Hoping to generate some discussion.

I am attempting to gather and form a set of 'best practices' with regards to teaching with an EFB, in support of a future FAASTeam safety seminar presentation. I'd love your input. Here's an initial list of thoughts:

- Ground instruction vs. flight instruction - different utilization in each environment
- What if the student wants to use an app with which the instructor is not familiar? (Fltplan Go, flyQ, WingX, etc.)
- What's appropriate use of EFB in training environment based on certificate level of the client? (Student, private, commercial, etc.)
- Using FAA products with complete notes - how to display chart legends ("Map Touch Action," etc.)
- CFI responsibility to teach the technology the client will actually use vs. fundamental building blocks of knowledge (teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime)
- What do you "lose" with vector-based chart views? (I.e. Notes, legend, MTRs, jet arrivals depicted on sectionals and TACs, enhanced detail in TAC, filtered data based on user preferences, data which auto declutters based on scale, on and on...)
- Can the EFB replace all of the paper materials in classroom - sectional, A/FD, etc.
- Removing ownship display from sectional, low enroute, instrument procedure, etc. for training purposes
- Utilizing the taxiway diagram / surface SA / heads-down while aircraft is in movement issues
- How to promote SA in the learning environment and not allow the student to fixate on the EFB display
- Notifications (FF runway awareness feature)
- Distractions from notifications on surface and in flight
- How does the EFB fit into a solo student's CRM, if at all (solo x/c?)
- Distractions from configuring display or learning features during high workload moments
- Does "learning" the EFB require its own dedicated ground instruction time? Will the client see the value? Can we afford to dedicate more time to an already long process (for private pilot?) Are most pilots already using these apps and feel they've mastered them? Is that really the case? Will CFIs be battling an expectation bias on the part of the client that the way they use the device is already appropriate?
- Confusion over priority between EFB and panel avionics when in apparent conflict
- Scenarios in which the student must revert to paper charts - can s/he?
- Reference FAA guidance on EFB usage where relevant
- Research / reference relevant ACs and InFOs as appropriate
- Documents kept on the EFB - when to use, why, how
- Checklist feature - pros and cons - do we want student pilots running checklists on an iPad?
- Scratchpad feature - pros and cons - do we want student pilots and student instrument pilots using the scratchpad instead of pen and paper?
- Tailoring the use of the EFB for each client's aptitude and interest
- Are paper charts and products a "baseline standard" which actually makes it easier for an instructor to ensure he's checked off all the boxes when teaching pilotage, dead reckoning, VFR navigation, VHF radio navigation, GPS navigation to multiple students? I.e. Should we all start with paper and then move to the EFB as appropriate?
- Some students expect to start and finish training utilizing their EFB (the tech 'excites' some.)
- IS THERE A WAY TO STANDARDIZE ANY OF THIS?
- IS THIS ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA?

Students of all levels, your input is requested as well!

Thank you!

 

[Rykymus]

I'm not a student, but was only a few short years ago. Like most, I was required to use paper during training and thru my check ride. I was lucky that my instructor was a FF user, and took the extra time to show me the basics.

I think your questions are timely, as EFBs will soon become the norm, if not the exclusive source of aviation navigation maps and charts. I believe that they do increase SA in the cockpit, when used correctly. In fact, I expect that I am 'heads down' less with an EFB than with paper, as it is quicker to find and read the information that I need from an EFB.

I expect many will argue that the ability to use paper is crucial, in case the EFB fails and all that. I don't buy that argument. It requires little cost and/or effort to ensure that does not happen, and one can always carry paper as a backup. I can use a calculator to do the math, but I still have to know the formulas.

To be honest, I have always been rather irritated that flight training, both VFR and IFR, still forces one to learn practices that most pilots will likely never use, while ignoring ones that they would. At least the first 50 hours after getting my PPL was spent learning my EFB and working it into my flying routines, and to do something with my GPS other than 'direct to'. Flight training is so far behind technology as to be a hinderance to new pilot safety, rather than a benefit.

I wish I could see your presentation, and I'll be watching this thread closely.

 

[citizen5000]

An EFB meets the standard for having a copy of a DP in the plane prior to takeoff. So paper is not required.

 

[coloradobluesky]

The problem is to really master an IFR/GPS, an EFB like Foreflight, or even a VFR GPS takes an hour with the manual and maybe 10 hours of flying with it. Even then its not knobs anymore, it's touchscreen, poke and wait, hovers and who knows what for input. They work great, once you know how to use them. But using one is almost a separate course. I know mine, but not everyone elses. We all know the charts.

Usually the CFI knows the FBO's plane's avionics, and some common ones, but not all of them and not total mastery. Im still finding hidden functions in the one's I use.

It's a problem for professional pilots too. They rely on the sim and an instructor, which is the best solution. Costs a lot less to operate the sim than it does the plane.

 

[jordane93]

As a CFI, I let my students use their EFB but have them turn off the GPS function. I have them make a paper log and use the whiz wheel. Once they are competent with that, they are free to use their EFB for flight planning.

 

[citizen5000]

It takes 5 seconds to make a complete and free VFR/IFR flight plan/log on https://skyvector.com/ (and filed over the web) and printed if a paper copy is needed for discussion with a CFI or DPE.

The same plan can be made on Foreflight or Garmin Pilot and brought to the plane. And the same plan can be synched and uploaded to a G1000 using Flightstream.

Even public schools no longer keep paper based encyclopedias.

 

[Rykymus]

I dare someone to justify still teaching the fracking whiz wheel. Dumbest thing ever. Use a tool to get a close answer instead of an app to get the correct answer.

 

[denverpilot]

I can't tell ya how I'll handle it, per se, but the basics are still the basics.

I can tell you this. The mismash of apps is going to make one big freaking Tower of Babel out of the whole thing as all the Apps get better and are at parity on fewture set, but have no standard user interface.

All you have to do is look at what it takes to support desktop and mobile computer users nowadays at most companies if they don't standardize harshly. The support staff spends most of their time asking the end user what version of X, Y, or Z branded software they're using just to even figure out how to help them.

Or set up remote access and memorize enough about every desktop OS out there, so the tech can do it themselves.

So probably the best sales pitch ever is, "Do you want me to teach you how to fly -- and all the stuff that goes with it -- in a way you can apply to any of those EFB products?

Or do you want to pay a very expensive teacher to teach buttomology your particular flavor of EFB instead?"

Some instructors will happily teach how to push buttons all day and will STILL have to also teach the basics. Some will know the basics come first to save the customer a lot of time and money.

Choose wisely. If you have the extra time and money to have someone teach you what buttons to push when you could figure that out for free at home on the couch, someone will happily take money for it. The green stuff all spends the same.

They'll still have to get the basics of being PIC across, and folks were doing that before DGs even existed.

Learning to fly isn't learning to poke buttons on a tablet a certain way, and vice-versa.

Ever notice how standardized FMS keyboards are, for the most part, even between manufacturers? I can't say for sure, since I don't fly behind one, but they all seem to have that whacked mis-designed keyboard.

 

[Profile climb]

I dare someone to justify still teaching the fracking whiz wheel. Dumbest thing ever. Use a tool to get a close answer instead of an app to get the correct answer.

Computers fail, yes even I pads

 

[Ryan F.]

I just want to throw this out there to the CFIs. Not trying to color the responses with my opinion, but it's important.

I have regularly heard -- not consistently from everyone, but from some clients -- for years now, a cry that learning to do a VFR navlog by hand is wasteful and unnecessary.

I've yet to be convinced that either are true. Is it a skill which is used regularly beyond the private pilot certificate? No and yes. Sure, we all use Foreflight, Fltplan.com, Garmin Pilot, etc. to plan and file flights. To suggest that it's important to actually continue hand-writing VFR navlogs might be excessive. But the hand-computed navlogs at the pre-private pilot level demonstrate and reinforce...

TC +/-WCA = TH +/-VAR = MH +/-DEV = CH

The relationships between true course, wind correction angle, magnetic variation, compass deviation, indicated airspeed, true airspeed, ground speed, and fuel consumption are explored and in my experience it is primarily through repetitive application that private pilot candidates actually understand how interrelated they all are.

If this is taught well and thoroughly, I believe a student's SA is permanently enhanced. No skill is safe from deterioration, but I have greater confidence that, down the road, he or she will have a better grasp on the big picture as they perform VFR navigation in their aircraft.

I don't teach the task or require the manual entry to make them good at manually creating navlogs... I teach the task to give them the building blocks they need for good SA.

In other words, although a student may think he or she knows what is important to learn... they don't necessarily have the experience to know that. It's the CFI's job to impart the fundamentals and in my opinion a hand-computed VFR navlog does that.

I don't require it beyond the private pilot level. And I don't require use of the whiz wheel. But I do require use of some kind of electronic E6B. Don't forget a student can't take an iPad or iPhone into a testing center, so they do need to learn how to use an electronic E6B, at minimum.

Your thoughts?

 

[jordane93]

I just want to throw this out there to the CFIs. Not trying to color the responses with my opinion, but it's important.

I have regularly heard -- not consistently from everyone, but from some clients -- for years now, a cry that learning to do a VFR navlog by hand is wasteful and unnecessary.

I've yet to be convinced that either are true. Is it a skill which is used regularly beyond the private pilot certificate? No and yes. Sure, we all use Foreflight, Fltplan.com, Garmin Pilot, etc. to plan and file flights. To suggest that it's important to actually continue hand-writing VFR navlogs might be excessive. But the hand-computed navlogs at the pre-private pilot level demonstrate and reinforce...

TC +/-WCA = TH +/-VAR = MH +/-DEV = CH

The relationships between true course, wind correction angle, magnetic variation, compass deviation, indicated airspeed, true airspeed, ground speed, and fuel consumption are explored and in my experience it is primarily through repetitive application that private pilot candidates actually understand how interrelated they all are.

If this is taught well and thoroughly, I believe a student's SA is permanently enhanced. No skill is safe from deterioration, but I have greater confidence that, down the road, he or she will have a better grasp on the big picture as they perform VFR navigation in their aircraft.

I don't teach the task or require the manual entry to make them good at manually creating navlogs... I teach the task to give them the building blocks they need for good SA.

In other words, although a student may think he or she knows what is important to learn... they don't necessarily have the experience to know that. It's the CFI's job to impart the fundamentals and in my opinion a hand-computed VFR navlog does that.

I don't require it beyond the private pilot level. And I don't require use of the whiz wheel. But I do require use of some kind of electronic E6B. Don't forget a student can't take an iPad or iPhone into a testing center, so they do need to learn how to use an electronic E6B, at minimum.

Your thoughts?

Flying is more than just "direct, enter, enter" follow the the magenta line

 

[Rykymus]

Oh, the old "computers can fail" assertion. I don't need a computer to make the calculations. Hell, if I know the formulas, I don't even need a calculator. Computers and calculators are useless if you don't know how to use them. Just as they are useless if you don't take care of them, just like you take care of your plane. Engines can fail. Avionics can fail. Does that mean you shouldn't be using an engine, and should instead be using pedal-power?

Of course everyone should learn how to plan a flight without the aid of an EFB or online flight planning aid. The problem is that too much emphasis is on just that. Once past the knowledge test, concentration should be more on how you WILL fly, not how you will fly if everything in your plane goes to crap. What percentage of your flight training is spent on flying with some failed instruments? Ten, twenty percent, at most? And why is that? It's because most of the time, your stuff works, and that's what you'll use.

How many people have died because they ran out of fuel? How many because they screwed up the W&B, winds, DA? How many of them might have been saved had they used an EFB or other technologies more advanced than paper, pencil, and whiz wheel?

Just cuz Grandpa used it and did just fine doesn't mean it's still a good way to do it.

 

[denverpilot]

How many people have died because they ran out of fuel? How many because they screwed up the W&B, winds, DA? How many of them might have been saved had they used an EFB or other technologies more advanced than paper, pencil, and whiz wheel?

Almost none. If you can't figure out gallons/pounds per hour divided by hours aloft, modern tech isn't going to fix that. The tech for that is ancient, and called a clock. If you want to be fancy, get a miniature clock on your wrist.

Sun dials aren't recommended, though. They have significant limitations that have to be understood. ;-)

 

[citizen5000]

Computers fail, yes even I pads

Paper gets dated. There is no reason making a student do a nav log by hand but there is a reason to have a student explain what is on the nav log and how the fields on it are computed. Using modern day tools is just how life is now.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I dare someone to justify still teaching the fracking whiz wheel. Dumbest thing ever. Use a tool to get a close answer instead of an app to get the correct answer.

If a 1-2% error is going to make a difference, you're doing it wrong to start with.

 

[Harold Rutila]

Separate topic: It would be nice to have a PoA forum for CFIs to discuss topics like this.

 

[Harold Rutila]

I've learned in roughly 4 years of instructing that it's best to have a set of recommended practices and products and stick to them. This job can get unnecessarily complex and extremely inefficient when we allow technology to delay the learning process because of unfamiliarity. I no longer permit students to haphazardly choose the technology we use during training except if there are circumstances that require their use of a specific product. This is not a "my way or the highway" mentality but rather just a common sense business skill that every professional in every industry utilizes. You have to play to your strengths to deliver the best product to your customers.

- Ground instruction vs. flight instruction - different utilization in each environment.

I stick to basics during ground school, usually relying on aviationweather.gov and 1800wxbrief.com to present the basic weather information for discussion purposes and to ensure students know how to use them both. If the student has an iPad and wants to use Foreflight (which I do not require) then we'll use Foreflight on the ground as well.

What if the student wants to use an app with which the instructor is not familiar? (Fltplan Go, flyQ, WingX, etc.)

I'm willing to do it on the condition that the student understands I am not as familiar with the product as Foreflight. Even then, I tend to shy away from this because some people forget about those lowered expectations regardless, which cultivates a negative relationship between me and the student, since I cannot provide as thorough instruction on their requested product.

What's appropriate use of EFB in training environment based on certificate level of the client? (Student, private, commercial, etc.)

Certificate and rating are irrelevant to me. I want to see people understanding what an EFB does to reduce workload more than anything, and what systems already in the airplane do what the EFB does much more simplistically. For example, 99% of radio frequency management can be done in the Garmin 430. There's no real reason anyone with a G430 and an iPad is digging in an EFB to find the ATIS frequency at their destination.

Using FAA products with complete notes - how to display chart legends ("Map Touch Action," etc.)

This is where paper still takes a precedence. To me, knowing what information is on the margin of a chart is important.

CFI responsibility to teach the technology the client will actually use vs. fundamental building blocks of knowledge (teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime)

The skill can be learned universally on paper. The skill can be applied to any EFB product after that. Contrarily, the skill cannot be learned universally in Foreflight, nor can it be applied to other EFB products after that, depending on how similar the EFBs are. In an effort to take the building-block approach towards EFBs, I find it best to ensure students have the fundamentals down on short cross-country flights on paper nav logs using an E6B before transitioning into the world of EFBs.

- What do you "lose" with vector-based chart views? (I.e. Notes, legend, MTRs, jet arrivals depicted on sectionals and TACs, enhanced detail in TAC, filtered data based on user preferences, data which auto declutters based on scale, on and on...)

There are still issues in EFBs when it comes to reading airport information for airports located on the boundaries of charts. Besides that, I've got nothin.

- Can the EFB replace all of the paper materials in classroom - sectional, A/FD, etc.

The way the Chart Supplement (aka A/FD) is laid out is very concise. The way it is laid out in EFBs varies. In Foreflight, Chart Supplement pages are excerpted in the Airport view. The legend is accessible in the Documents view. Knowing that the information comes from the same book can be of value to any pilot who finds himself without an EFB one day. In short, no.

Removing ownship display from sectional, low enroute, instrument procedure, etc. for training purposes

I require it during training. The worst thing I ever saw regarding ownship was a guy looking at the ownship for position information in actual IMC, which happened to differ slightly from what the GPS was portraying. Not cool.

Utilizing the taxiway diagram / surface SA / heads-down while aircraft is in movement issues

EFBs have drastically increased the number of pilots using taxiway diagrams while operating in movement areas. This is a good thing. Heads-down activity has to be minimized during all phases of flight, though. Mounts are ideal. Good training and reinforcement is crucial.

How to promote SA in the learning environment and not allow the student to fixate on the EFB display
Notifications (FF runway awareness feature)
Distractions from notifications on surface and in flight
Distractions from configuring display or learning features during high workload moments

TURN ALL PUSH NOTIFICATIONS OFF. This is a pervasive issue that I see with the iPad. As soon as one of those notifications comes up, pilots instinctively reach for the tablet to swipe away the notification. It'd be better if they were disabled, at least while flying.

How does the EFB fit into a solo student's CRM, if at all (solo x/c?)

I love EFBs for solo cross countries. Students can activate flight plans without having to talk to FSS via radio. The ownship information, when used correctly, can provide valuable situational awareness. The tablet size reduces cockpit clutter that paper charts create. There are a number of benefits when the skill of using an EFB is taught correctly.

Does "learning" the EFB require its own dedicated ground instruction time? Will the client see the value? Can we afford to dedicate more time to an already long process (for private pilot?) Are most pilots already using these apps and feel they've mastered them? Is that really the case? Will CFIs be battling an expectation bias on the part of the client that the way they use the device is already appropriate?

(a) Yes, which is why I don't necessarily require students use an EFB.

(b) Not all primary/IFR students will. The pilots coming back for flight reviews who learned to fly without EFBs definitely do; in fact, I've been asked by pilots if I could sit down with them and teach them how to use Foreflight a number of times. I am happy to do this for customers whom I know will appreciate it, with the mutual understanding that everything I present to them can also be found online and in the app's own manual.

Confusion over priority between EFB and panel avionics when in apparent conflict

Pilots need to know how to use all of the installed avionics in their aircraft to the maximum extent possible, and then use EFBs as a means of obtaining supplemental information to the extent that the avionics cannot. See my answer regarding "ownship" and "frequency management" above.

Scenarios in which the student must revert to paper charts - can s/he?

This goes back to knowing what is on a paper chart legend and knowing what the Chart Supplement (aka A/FD) looks like. I think it is a necessary skill.

Checklist feature - pros and cons - do we want student pilots running checklists on an iPad?

I'm not opposed to this at all. Losing the paper checklist in the airplane is a surprisingly easy thing to do. Losing an iPad is much harder.

Scratchpad feature - pros and cons - do we want student pilots and student instrument pilots using the scratchpad instead of pen and paper?

Consider me unopposed. However most people realize this is an oversold feature and that pen and paper are usually always 10x more reliable than the EFB scratchpad.

Are paper charts and products a "baseline standard" which actually makes it easier for an instructor to ensure he's checked off all the boxes when teaching pilotage, dead reckoning, VFR navigation, VHF radio navigation, GPS navigation to multiple students? I.e. Should we all start with paper and then move to the EFB as appropriate?

I still do for this very reason.

Some students expect to start and finish training utilizing their EFB (the tech 'excites' some.)

Depends on whether or not they have already passed the written.

In all seriousness, I don't see anything wrong with getting excitement out of technology so long as a pilot can still fly safely without it.

- IS THERE A WAY TO STANDARDIZE ANY OF THIS?
- IS THIS ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA?

Yes. Instructors should stick to teaching software they know and are familiar with. Fundamental skills like time, fuel, and distance calculations as well as TC +/- WCA = TH +/- VAR = MC +/- DEV = CH must continue to be instilled without reliance on an EFB. Students should understand what EFBs do to reduce workload, and which functions (if any) are already more easily performed using those avionics. Using an EFB mount and emphasizing the need to keep your heads up and eyes outside the cockpit for a majority of the flight is crucial as well.

 

[MAKG1]

Paper gets dated. There is no reason making a student do a flight log by hand but there is a reason to have a student explain what is on the flight log and how the fields on it are computed. Using modern day tools is just how life is now.

Yup, there's the reason.

Explain the algorithm Foreflight uses to determine how long it takes to climb from sea level to 8000 and then descend at Vno.

It is not documented. And the answers it gets are ridiculous.

Paper gets dated very slowly. Sectionals last 6 months and aren't generally wrong for many years.

 

[citizen5000]

Paper gets dated very slowly. Sectionals last 6 months and aren't generally wrong for many years.

The EFBs (Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, Avare, iFlyQ etc) and Skyvector.com source their sectionals from the same database the paper guys do but unless you go and buy the most current paper sectional you will not be current.

Can you overlay realtime graphical weather radar, cloud cover, sigmets, airmets and TFRs on a paper sectional? No. But you get that with the electronic versions. A complete flight plan and nav log can be generated and filed electronically in a minute or so electronically - for free if you use Skyvector or Avare. http://ipadpilotnews.com/2015/09/avare-offers-free-one-efb-app-android/

 

[Rykymus]

I get what MAKG1 is saying, and I agree with it in principal, just not in practice. You can teach someone how to plan a flight, and how to calculate in all the variables required to do so, and you can do so without a paper flight plan. I do agree that it is probably easier to teach with that paper flight plan form than with an EFB. My problem is that too much emphasis is put on outdated methods that are unlikely to be used by the student once they get their license. That results in a transition period during which that new pilot is less safe than he/she could be, had more emphasis been placed on the methods that would be in use after certification. Whole chapters are dedicated to using the whiz wheel and completing a flight plan on paper. Hours of instruction, probably about a dozen questions on the test. What do they teach you about the GPS? RAIM, Direct to, and how many GPS satellites are required. Where did my whiz wheel go after training? Same place as my paper charts and nav logs...in the trash.

EFBs, GPS, and Autopilots are the future of general aviation. I am by no means saying that paper charts, paper nav logs, and hand flying should be taught less, only that they should be taught with equal fervor. Anything less is a disservice to the entire aviation community, and puts us all at risk.

 

[dmspilot]

Using paper teaches higher order thinking skills (HOTS), one of the latest emphasis areas at the FAA. Using a computer replaces higher-order thinking skills.

I had the experience of using the airport computer immediately after a student pilot (not one of mine) used SkyVector to plan his solo cross-country. The student accepted the defaults, such as a cruise altitude of 8,000' MSL, in an area near sea level, for a ~50 mile trip. Somehow I don't think the student actually flew at 8,000', which is not even a legal VFR altitude. Needless to say his wind correction angle, groundspeed, and ETAs would have been so far off they might as well have been made up. Anyone can type in a set of airports on a computer and press a button, that doesn't mean they will understand the result.

 

[MAKG1]

I get what MAKG1 is saying, and I agree with it in principal, just not in practice. You can teach someone how to plan a flight, and how to calculate in all the variables required to do so, and you can do so without a paper flight plan. I do agree that it is probably easier to teach with that paper flight plan form than with an EFB. My problem is that too much emphasis is put on outdated methods that are unlikely to be used by the student once they get their license. That results in a transition period during which that new pilot is less safe than he/she could be, had more emphasis been placed on the methods that would be in use after certification. Whole chapters are dedicated to using the whiz wheel and completing a flight plan on paper. Hours of instruction, probably about a dozen questions on the test. What do they teach you about the GPS? RAIM, Direct to, and how many GPS satellites are required. Where did my whiz wheel go after training? Same place as my paper charts and nav logs...in the trash.

EFBs, GPS, and Autopilots are the future of general aviation. I am by no means saying that paper charts, paper nav logs, and hand flying should be taught less, only that they should be taught with equal fervor. Anything less is a disservice to the entire aviation community, and puts us all at risk.

I'm hardly an old pilot. I learned with the same available gadgets.

Heads down in Foreflight is a bad position for any VFR pilot to be in. It DOES take more work to get there than it does on paper due to all the pinching and zooming.

A pilot must be proficient in all the installed equipment on the aircraft. That includes autopilots, GPSs, PFDs, whatever. Which is a damn good reason to train on a simpler aircraft. The other stuff can come later, which sure works better for making proficient pilots. The airplane will fly the same whether it has gadgets or not, so in PRIMARY training, none of the gadgets are necessary. There is enough firehose without teaching students that the green arrow means the autopilot is going to track the nav radio rather than the GPS. The equation is quite different for instrument training, and obviously for a TAA transition.

You can very easily fly safely with no gadgets, VFR. I wish I understood why some pilots insist the magic iPad is so essential. It isn't. You can spot the weather with these extraordinary gadgets that come built into your head. Just like you don't need an AI when you have a real horizon.

If a nav log gives you trouble, you don't understand the flight planning process well enough. Full stop. Even the whiz wheel isn't very hard to deal with, though you can use whatever you want to figure out the wind triangle. Just make sure your gadget has batteries if it needs them. I had one of those "electronic E6Bs" as a student and the interface is so inflexible as to be useless; it's been turned off for six years now. Now, it's true that I don't use the whiz wheel much anymore (except for calculating density altitude), but it does help understand what's going on, especially for wind problems. And if you can't get 2-3 digit accuracy out of any slide rule, you're not using it correctly. It's plenty accurate for its use.

I think the difference is that I work on software systems, and I've written a special purpose flight planner. This means I don't trust consumer software further than I can throw it. Certified software has a different testing equation, but it's still not a substitute for eyeballs and brains.

 

[citizen5000]

... a student pilot (not one of mine) used SkyVector to plan his solo cross-country. The student accepted the defaults, such as a cruise altitude of 8,000' MSL...

If a student can't type in an altitude in a box then they certainly would not be able to create an entire nav log by hand.

 

[dmspilot]

If a student can't type in an altitude in a box then they certainly would not be able to create an entire nav log by hand.

Is that supposed to be a defense? It doesn't sound like one.

They don't go until they can do it.

 

[coloradobluesky]

I think a pilot should be able to do a weight and balance BY HAND! (ok, he can use a calculator). And you'd be surprised how many can't!

 

[citizen5000]

I think a pilot should be able to do a weight and balance BY HAND! (ok, he can use a calculator). And you'd be surprised how many can't!

Why? The W&B tool is also part of the EFBs and using them means a pilot is more likely to check W&B before each flight since entering weight delta is easily done and gets reliably computed quickly without error.

 

[MAKG1]

Why? The W&B tool is also part of the EFBs and using them means a pilot is more likely to check W&B before each flight since entering weight delta is easily done and gets reliably computed quickly without error.

So you understand what the H it's about.

And what kind of approximations go into it. Like, just what is the arm for the luggage you have put in the cargo area?

It's basic torque balancing. Not understanding that has killed people. Especially when loads shift.

 

[citizen5000]

So you understand what the H it's about.

And what kind of approximations go into it. Like, just what is the arm for the luggage you have put in the cargo area?

It's basic torque balancing. Not understanding that has killed people. Especially when loads shift.

The Garmin Pilot W&B tool allows configuring moment/ARM for each station in the plane including the baggage area. You enter weight for pilot, co-pilot seats, rear seats, and baggage area and the tool displays the result graphically. Less than a minute required before the flight.

 

[MAKG1]

The Garmin Pilot W&B tool allows configuring ARM for each position in the plane including the baggage area. You enter weight for pilot, co-pilot seats, rear seats, and baggage area and the tool displays the result graphically. Less than a minute required before the flight.

You still have to understand what it's doing.

Having a computer do it all for you from day 1 prevents this.

Yes, it's quick, but garbage in, garbage out.

 

[dmspilot]

Multiplication, addition, and division are so hard that we shouldn't expect people who want to fly airplanes to be able to do it. Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Why learn to fly the plane, because an autopilot can fly it better.

 

[Harold Rutila]

Why? The W&B tool is also part of the EFBs and using them means a pilot is more likely to check W&B before each flight since entering weight delta is easily done and gets reliably computed quickly without error.

If the weight and balance data is not loaded correctly, it can also produce unsafe results. It is not "without error" unless the source data is 100% correct.

 

[Rykymus]

How does FF equal more face down time than a paper chart or nav log? If anything, it's faster, if you know how to use it.

You do realize that the whiz wheel is simply a mechanical computer, right? So why is there no complaint that you have to understand how before using it?

If you think only teaching paper and whiz wheels makes better pilots, you shouldn't be teaching.

 

[MAKG1]

How does FF equal more face down time than a paper chart or nav log? If anything, it's faster, if you know how to use it.

You do realize that the whiz wheel is simply a mechanical computer, right? So why is there no complaint that you have to understand how before using it?

If you think only teaching paper and whiz wheels makes better pilots, you shouldn't be teaching.

Ever seen a rookie pilot fly?

Try it. It will be obvious.

A whiz wheel is a "computer" in the same sense that a ruler is. Just because it has the archaic form of the word "computer" in its name doesn't mean it has the same effect. If you really understood what the wind triangle was doing, there would be a rather obvious geometric connection. I'd suggest you check this out -- you've missed an important point and it's driving you to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[citizen5000]

If the weight and balance data is not loaded correctly, it can also produce unsafe results. It is not "without error" unless the source data is 100% correct.

Once you set the tool up with the data from the manufacturer the only error you can make is putting in the wrong weights. Hand calculating W&B is far more error prone since you are manually processing all the numbers including the weights and then you still need to repeat the calcs accurately for each flight.

The use of a W&B tool will lead to a pilot actually doing W&B before a given flight since the effort is far less complicated and time consuming. Few to none will do the same thing hand working numbers. Setup the tool, test it and then use it. After all, you brought the tablet with EFB on it anyway so why not take advantage of W&B too.

 

[Rykymus]

For the record, I was taught with paper charts, paper nav logs, and the whiz wheel, just like most of others. (Which I happily abandoned the day after my check ride.) But I still don't believe my conclusion is incorrect. If anything, being forced to use the whiz wheel and paper likely hampered my progress. And I certainly did not NEED them in order to understand how to calculate fuel burn, wind correction, DA, etc... The whiz wheel is just as much a crutch as an E6B app, just an easier to use and more precise one. (Assuming that the user understands the principles, and inputs the correct data, which applies to both digital and paper.)

Have you ever considered that the reason a rookie pilot has his head down more with FF could be because no one bothered to teach him how to use it? I guarantee you that I can come up with answers faster with an E6B app vs a whiz wheel, and my answer will likely be more exact. (Not that such exactness is always necessary, as flying takes place in ever-changing environment.) Yet, that was not true until long after I got my PPL, during which time I was probably at greater risk of making calculation/planning errors. THAT is my complaint with your logic.

Honestly, how can anyone possibly assert that there is only one way to effectively teach something? Any good teacher will tell you that everyone learns differently. Just because someone isn't learning to fly the way you were taught doesn't make it wrong, just as it doesn't make it better, just because it's newer. But without a doubt, close-minded attitudes toward alternate ways of teaching and the effective use of new technologies does little to benefit students. Such attitudes only hold back innovation, and innovation generally leads to increased safety, if applied properly, which is exactly what the OP is trying to figure out how to do.

I wonder if early pilots were equally critical of the whiz wheel when it was first introduced? I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[coloradobluesky]

The reason pilots should know how to calculate weight and balance by hand is by doing so they learn how things really work. Even better would be to go out with some weights to a teeter totter and see how the length of arm and weight work to affect balance. Otherwise, weight and balance just becomes an exercise in filling in the little square with numbers and reading the results. Thats fine once you understand whats going on.

Where pilots earn their pay, and GA pilots save their life, is when things go wrong and the pilot makes the right decision to compensate for it and get in safely. Pilots need a good feel for how things actually work. Not just be automotans that follow checklists.

 

[Ryan F.]

The reason pilots should know how to calculate weight and balance by hand is by doing so they learn how things really work.

That's a good summation.

So much of what we learn isn't to be able to repetitively perform the task, it's to understand the concepts.

We don't practice building VFR nav logs by hand so that we can do them longhand, and forever -- we practice so we understand the relationships between time, speed, distance, the effects of wind, etc.

We don't practice steep turns to make pilots who can do steep turns really well -- we practice so they gain a better sense of aircraft control and innate understanding of AOA.

We don't practice S-turns across a road to be good at doing those either -- we practice so we're good at maintaining precise, positive aircraft control while dividing our attention inside and outside the airplane.

Go right on up to an airline captain, and these tiny little building blocks play a role in every revenue flight he or she makes. That's why we can't skimp on the fundamentals early on, and move right into the 'easy way of doing things.' That's doing our students a disservice. Those are blocks at the very center, ground floor of the stack he/she builds over the course of a lifetime. If they're weak, the whole column will topple someday.

 

[Piperboy]

That's it Ryan.

The airliners I fly are equipped with dual EFB's for the past nine years, previously paper charts. The flight plans, weather, notams, etc. are paper.

Being from the old school, I learned everything the good old way, though I appreciate the convenience of an EFB. My own airplane will be equipped with an EFB, but I will also carry the local VFR and IFR paper charts, along with paper airplane manuals, which will be on the EFB in electronic format as well. Most certainly my E6B will be available as well.

 

[citizen5000]

The argument: "The reason pilots should know how to calculate weight and balance by hand is by doing so they learn how things really work" falls apart for most pilots in most aspects of flying.

Why?

Few of us are degree'd in aeronautical engineering and physics to be able to truly explain the intricacies of aerodynamics, propulsion, avionics, materials, structural analysis and manufacturing and fluid mechanics. Or can do the calculations (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) needed to express these things.

Few of us are degree'd in mechanical engineering to be able to fully explain the design and maintenance of each component inside the engine. Nor the ability to truly detect or diagnose a subtle malfunction. And fewer still understand the science of metallurgy or could even explain the basics of a 4-stroke engine or a turbo-charger.

Few of us understand the chemistry of engine oil, fuels or other lubricating agents necessary to keep the plane in the air.

Few of us have a degree in Meteorology yet we munge thru the weather products believing we can predict and understand the weather well enough to stay out of trouble.

Few of us know the engineering and physics of GPS and GPS sats. How many truly know what RAIM and WAAS is?

How many understand Radar or the radio technology in our planes and in Navaids? Not how to use it but explain how the transmitters and receivers work (electronics and electromagnetic wave theory.)

And fewer still understand software technology which is more and more involved in aviation (in avionics, in the tablets, online).

 

[dmspilot]

Few of us are degree'd in aeronautical engineering and physics to be able to truly explain the intricacies of aerodynamics, propulsion, avionics, materials, structural analysis and manufacturing and fluid mechanics. Or can do the calculations (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) needed to express these things.

Weight and balance isn't differential equations, it's elementary school level math. If you can't do it maybe you should pick another hobby like competitive rider mower racing.