Obsolete knowledge

RalphInCA

RalphInCA

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
1,353
Location
McMinnville, OR
Display Name
Display name:
RalphInCA
I've been sitting here studying for my Commercial, and started thinking that much of what I am being forced to learn has been obsoleted by modern technology.

Question: What, of all the things you had to learn for your ratings, would you eliminate because modern technology has done away with the need to learn that thing?

First thing that comes to my mind is deciphering METARS and other weather reports. Much of this is now deciphered for us by ForeFlight and other programs.

What think you?
 
Can't speak to the commercial, as I'm not that far yet. But I agree with you on deciphering Wx data. Dumbest thing ever. I understand that it is the way it is because of the limitations of technology at the time that it was created, but come on! I can download a movie to my iPad over a cellular connection in a couple minutes! I should be able to get my weather in plain English, from a hot chick in a tight dress, complete with commercials and movie trailers these days!

Plenty will come along and claim that real pilots can decipher Wx data without difficulty. Yeah, so can I. But if you use plain English, there is much less chance that those who do not fly regularly might misinterpret the cryptic Wx data that looks like it came out of the 1950s. Those would be the same guys that insist that you must talk to a weather briefer to be properly prepared.
 
You're being forced to learn to decipher METARs now?

You should already know that.

While certain people like to pretend "modern technology" has changed aviation, the basics really are the same. Kinematics is still the same, engines are still the same, controls are still the same, even the airplanes in a lot of cases are still the same.

For the commercial certificate, the list of new stuff you have to know is very short. That might be different if the FAA ever transitions to a TAA requirement like they have been discussing for years, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The thing is, once you've been through a few "technological revolutions," you realize almost all of it is hype and they really are all the same. Sometimes the technology hides important information from you. There is even a longstanding (if misapplied) principle in computer engineering that encourages that.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Same. Somehow I find it faster to read raw than to read translated.
Click to expand...
Same here. I created an aviationweather.gov bookmark on my phone and computer with all the METAR's and TAF's for my general area. I'll add to it if I'm going farther. I can quickly look at the resulting text and get a good picture of the current weather much faster than if it were decoded. I use this more than any weather apps.

http://www.aviationweather.gov/adds...most+recent+only&chk_tafs=on&submitmet=Submit
 
jordane93 said:
I still read METAR/TAF in raw format. I've found it's really not that hard to decipher
Click to expand...
yes, but plain English is easier and having to decipher anything increases the chance of error. technology has moved forward since the teletype and telegraph. I agree with Ralph...I just can't see a good reason to continue to present metars, taf's and other wx information in raw format. ATIS/AWOS, FSS does not give wx in a condensed format so why should printed wx data?
 
rk911 said:
yes, but plain English is easier and having to decipher anything increases the chance of error. technology has moved forward since the teletype and telegraph. I agree with Ralph...I just can't see a good reason to continue to present metars, taf's and other wx information in raw format. ATIS/AWOS, FSS does not give wx in a condensed format so why should printed wx data?
Click to expand...
Sure. It's all about preference. Plus at work I don't get the option of getting deciphered METAR or TAF. Everything is raw format. God forbid we actually have to put work into being a pilot. The plane I fly doesn't have a true VNAV. I'm always backing the plane's advisory path with my own mental math to make sure we're going to make crossing restriction. Even planes with full VNAV, should the pilots not know how to calculate a VNAV just because the plane does it for them?
 
jordane93 said:
Sure. It's all about preference. Plus at work I don't get the option of getting deciphered METAR or TAF. Everything is raw format.
Click to expand...
It sure is nice to have the RAW METAR in the lower right corner of the G1000 MFD flight plan screen, for your selected location.

No way you would fit a decoded METAR in that space unless it was trivial. But if it's clear and a million and calm, I don't care about the METAR. I care if I'm getting the **** knocked out of me and I know there are cells around.

And it's a flight plan page. I want to see where the autopilot is sequencing next. Taking more real estate for weather is the wrong solution. So is asking me to flip pages.

It's my SOP to keep that page up most of the time on the MFD. It helps prevent automation surprises.
 
It's just a foundation, I'd say most all of it is important, just because there are apps that can do things like decode a metar, I sure would be ticked off if my friends got stuck somewhere because the pilots phone died and he couldn't read a old school metar to know the wx at the destination lol
 
One thing I haven't learned to fully decipher is PIREPs. I'll take the translation on those all day long.
 
MAKG1 said:
It sure is nice to have the RAW METAR in the lower right corner of the G1000 MFD flight plan screen, for your selected location.

No way you would fit a decoded METAR in that space unless it was trivial. But if it's clear and a million and calm, I don't care about the METAR. I care if I'm getting the **** knocked out of me and I know there are cells around.

And it's a flight plan page. I want to see where the autopilot is sequencing next. Taking more real estate for weather is the wrong solution. So is asking me to flip pages.

It's my SOP to keep that page up most of the time on the MFD. It helps prevent automation surprises.
Click to expand...
IIRC correctly the G1000 has the option of a decoded when you pull up the airport info on the MFD. I know on the Perspective you are able to do that. Normally I just hit the cursor on the MFD, slide the cursor over to the airport weather flag and read the raw format. To each their own. I know I can read a raw METAR just as fast as a decoded one so normally I'll just read the raw version.
 
jordane93 said:
The plane I fly doesn't have a true VNAV. I'm always backing the plane's advisory path with my own mental math to make sure we're going to make crossing restriction. Even planes with full VNAV, should the pilots not know how to calculate a VNAV just because the plane does it for them?
Click to expand...

What you dont like dropping 15,000 ft in under 30 nm. Isnt that what flight idle and spoilers are for....:D
 
Yes, I still use the raw METAR too. Habit developed over the years perhaps (I learned to fly in 1974).
But then I've heard there's some old die hards out there that still use Morse code. ;)

So maybe it is time to move on with the technology?
 
How to read a chart.

Or for that matter, fly an airplane, if you are going to be flying in a Cirrus.
 
MAKG1 said:
While certain people like to pretend "modern technology" has changed aviation, the basics really are the same. Kinematics is still the same, engines are still the same, controls are still the same, even the airplanes in a lot of cases are still the same.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing still relevant about the use of abbreviations based on French words for weather phenomenon.
 
I'm okay with METARS/TAFs but would really like winds aloft to be not in teletype format.

The only WX chart that bugs me is the constant pressure chart. It's useful for feeding into other forecasts but in and of itself I get more comprehensive information elsewhere.

BTW, I don't think the commercial written has gotten rid of TWEBs and some other outdated services.
 
MAKG1 said:
You're being forced to learn to decipher METARs now?

You should already know that.
Click to expand...

Of course I do, and of course most what I am being tested on for the commercial is not new. That wasn't the point of the question. And maybe METARs wasn't a good example.

The question was what of everything we have to learn as pilots should we not have to learn because of modern technology has negated the need to learn that thing.
 
jordane93 said:
I still read METAR/TAF in raw format.
Click to expand...
Same here, I agree with the others that raw is simpler

It's like this: METAR = 5,283
Translated: Five thousand two hundred and eighty three
^The top one just seems more direct
 
I prefer the METAR in raw format as well, it's more like reading in a second language. I'm sure someone can misinterpret it, but it's still pretty difficult to do unless you're unfamiliar with reading them. It's basically just short-hand.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yeah, especially since the whole world speaks English.

Oh, wait.

You'll cause far more disruption changing something that works.
Click to expand...
English IS the official language of aviation/ATC however....as well as the maritime world.

Lot more folks speak English than French.

Try again.
 
Fearless Tower said:
English IS the official language of aviation/ATC however....

Try again.
Click to expand...

Not everywhere, especially for domestic flights overseas. Like, say, in France.

METAR codes are ICAO. Remember what that "I" stands for.

And just because some parts of the P/CG are understood for international flight doesn't mean all pilots flying in US airspace understand all aviation related English words.

You try again.
 
Lessee ... anything to do with LORAN; almost anything to do with NDBs, ADFs and marker beacons; how to test and replace vacuum tubes in avionics (our old Narco Mk12 let me spend quality time with the tube testing machine at the local Thrifty Drug Store); visual emergency signals (they used to be printed on the backs of sectional charts); Morse code.

METARs are like a not-well-learned second language to me -- I learned to fly using the old Hourly Sequence Report teletype format, and still use those old sky cover symbols in my shorthand. "KPDX 29018G26KT 7SM -RA BKN012 OVC100 06/05 A2957" still comes out in my brain as
Screen Shot 2017-04-12 at 12.47.08 PM.png
 
RalphInCA said:
I've been sitting here studying for my Commercial, and started thinking that much of what I am being forced to learn has been obsoleted by modern technology.

Question: What, of all the things you had to learn for your ratings, would you eliminate because modern technology has done away with the need to learn that thing?

First thing that comes to my mind is deciphering METARS and other weather reports. Much of this is now deciphered for us by ForeFlight and other programs.

What think you?
Click to expand...
If you go to www.aviationweather.gov/gfa, select the Observations tab, and click on METARS (duh), you have the option of raw or decoded.
 
Pilawt said:
Lessee ... anything to do with LORAN; almost anything to do with NDBs, ADFs and marker beacons; how to test and replace vacuum tubes in avionics (our old Narco Mk12 let me spend quality time with the tube testing machine at the local Thrifty Drug Store); visual emergency signals (they used to be printed on the backs of sectional charts); Morse code.

METARs are like a not-well-learned second language to me -- I learned to fly using the old Hourly Sequence Report teletype format, and still use those old sky cover symbols in my shorthand. "KPDX 29018G26KT 7SM -RA BKN012 OVC100 06/05 A2957" still comes out in my brain as
View attachment 52720
Click to expand...

Insofar as LORAN, ADF/NDB, etc are concerned, this is the latest info:

/www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/media/whats_new_general.pdf
 
I have an ADF in my panel and occasionally I turn it on and tune it into a beacon just for heck of it. As I watch the needle either not lock onto the signal at all or bounce back and forth within a 15 degree margin of error I think thank god I don't have to rely on something like this to find my way around.

And yet at one time in history this was revolutionary.... wow.
 
cowman said:
I have an ADF in my panel and occasionally I turn it on and tune it into a beacon just for heck of it. As I watch the needle either not lock onto the signal at all or bounce back and forth within a 15 degree margin of error I think thank god I don't have to rely on something like this to find my way around.

And yet at one time in history this was revolutionary.... wow.
Click to expand...

Hey! Hey! Hey!
I love ADF.
I have a list of cities with local AM stations. I just set the station and go, listening to whatever is broadcasting.
Back in the day, when I was flying at night, I could get WLS in Chicago from anywhere on the east cost, flying and grooving to the Beatles.The original magenta line, with attitude. :D
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sorry bub. If THAT is your point/justification then you fail.
Click to expand...
If your only argument is a silly xenophobic complaint about English not being the source of a very simple code, you fail.

I guess you'll next complain to the scientific community that lead shouldn't be abbreviated Pb or gold Au. Good luck with that one, too.
 
Here's another thing I am pondering:

If we got rid of all the requirements to learn things "the old way" (since much of the "old way" has been obsoleted by new technology), making it easier to get private pilots license, would that translate into more people actually continuing on to get the license - reducing the 80% dropout rate - and increase the active pilot population?

Would this also mean more professional/commercial pilots, therefore reducing the pilot shortage?
 
Sorry, Metars were never meant to be an efficient form of communication. They were a result of limited bandwidth on old teletypes. They represent the best of the old school mentality.... dammit, it was hard for us, so it should be hard for you! O wd u prfr it lk ths?
 
Shepherd said:
Hey! Hey! Hey!
I love ADF.
I have a list of cities with local AM stations. I just set the station and go, listening to whatever is broadcasting.
Back in the day, when I was flying at night, I could get WLS in Chicago from anywhere on the east cost, flying and grooving to the Beatles.The original magenta line, with attitude. :D
Click to expand...
Do they still chart/list the AM towers so you could home in on them with the ol' ADF?
 
RalphInCA said:
Here's another thing I am pondering:

If we got rid of all the requirements to learn things "the old way" (since much of the "old way" has been obsoleted by new technology), making it easier to get private pilots license, would that translate into more people actually continuing on to get the license - reducing the 80% dropout rate - and increase the active pilot population?

Would this also mean more professional/commercial pilots, therefore reducing the pilot shortage?
Click to expand...
Why should the license be easy to get? We're flying airplanes that go 10000ft and 150-200 mph! Don't dumb down the license. It's a privilege. If you can't do simple arithmetic or remember a few METAR codes you have no reason to be PIC because you'll be making decisions a lot harder than those.
 
jordane93 said:
Why should the license be easy to get? We're flying airplanes that go 10000ft and 150-200 mph! Don't dumb down the license. It's a privilege. If you can't do simple arithmetic or remember a few METAR codes you have no reason to be PIC because you'll be making decisions a lot harder than those.
Click to expand...
Why should it be easier to get? Because if we don't do something to arrest the decline in active pilot population this passion that we all love will be gone soon.
 
RalphInCA said:
Why should it be easier to get? Because if we don't do something to arrest the decline in active pilot population this passion that we all love will be gone soon.
Click to expand...
Yea but at the expense of dumbing down the knowledge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top