Obsolete knowledge

Commercial written is full of obsolete stuff.
Who maintains situational awareness by calculating distance from the station by how much your ADF needle moves in 5 minutes.
 
Shepherd said:
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...

Or WABC in NY, so powerful I'm told airliners leaving Paris would tune it in shortly after takeoff. I even picked it up on the ground in St. Louis one night... and I fondly remember listening to Simon & Garfunkel's Sounds of Silence in a rented 172 while crossing over the Lambert TCA (there's another obsolete term for ya) at 8000' to avoid talking to the controllers.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I spent time studying them, but never actually saw (heard) one.
Click to expand...

I think they were still described in the AIM in 1976, still a few left in remote areas at that time. I was intrigued but even though I've always been interested in obsolete technology (hey, I fly an open cockpit biplane, after all) I do think providing weather information (only) in a format designed for low baud rate teletype printers is silly. But the real reason is that if they changed it, a lot of modern systems that are expecting the old format and then decode it would break.
 
It's only obsolete if you look at it as skills or equipment you'll never use. Even if it's something you never use after training, a lot of information is important to learn to provide a better understanding of basic airmanship.

Knowing how determine your course with a map and an E6B is a good learning tool in how wind affects your track. Yeah, there's a good chance you won't use it after you get your license but it's not like teaching it takes an inordinate amount of time. I still use the E6B on my watch all the time.

Understanding W&B is far easier when you do it manually. Just attended aircraft refresher training with another professional pilot and he couldn't do the example problem we were given. Been raised on electronics vs understanding the basics. Seen a lack of understanding basic aerodynamics in some pilots as well but that's a whole other topic.

As far as avionics, I like having redundancy at my disposal. While GPS is pretty darn reliable, I have had a few cases where it failed. Maybe keeping ADF is a bit of an overkill but I shot a crapload of ADF approaches in the military and it'll get you down in a bind. GCA could also be considered obsolete technology but it's nice to have on tap when avionics fail. Compass turns? Well never had to do them real world but I don't think it's skill that shouldn't be taught. Takes only a few minutes to teach and understand.

Never really understood the gripe with METARs. Always thought they were in an easy to understand, abbreviated format. Was even easier prior to the mid 90s when we went ICAO but it's no hassle to learn.

Technology should make the act of preflight planning more streamlined and provide better SA while airborne. It shouldn't be a crutch that grounds you while you have suitable alternatives available. They might take longer to implement or require more skill but they still have an acceptable level of safety.
 
RalphInCA said:
How about... We shoot all fuddy duddy old grumpy CFIs that insist on teaching flying using hard to understand concepts and tools (like E6Bs) because "that's the way I learned, and new pilots gotta pay their dues!"
Click to expand...

I'll propose the opposite; that if you're a low-time, wet-ink commercial pilot who has never actually had an emergency or really flown in really bad weather before, you don't have enough airmanship yourself to be teaching other pilots.

:)
 
E6Bs as "hard to understand concepts."

Time, fuel, and distance. Density altitude. Fuel consumption.

Oh, the horror!
 
Dana said:
Or WABC in NY, so powerful I'm told airliners leaving Paris would tune it in shortly after takeoff. I even picked it up on the ground in St. Louis one night... and I fondly remember listening to Simon & Garfunkel's Sounds of Silence in a rented 172 while crossing over the Lambert TCA (there's another obsolete term for ya) at 8000' to avoid talking to the controllers.
Click to expand...

There's a station in California that only plays The Bee Gees... :)
 
jordane93 said:
I still read METAR/TAF in raw format. I've found it's really not that hard to decipher
Click to expand...

NealRomeoGolf said:
Same. Somehow I find it faster to read raw than to read translated.
Click to expand...

I do, too.

NealRomeoGolf said:
One thing I haven't learned to fully decipher is PIREPs. I'll take the translation on those all day long.
Click to expand...

I'll second that.

RalphInCA said:
We've already discussed in this thread eliminating confusing weather reporting systems In favor of plain text, easy to understand systems.

How about... we figure out a way to -- SAFELY -- incorporate the power and ease of use of iPad technology and ForeFlight EFBs early in the training and eliminate the difficult and laborious process of XC planning? (This may require further development of iPad/EFB technology.)

How about... revamping aircraft certification rules and fixing liability exposure so that -- SAFE -- easy to fly aircraft could be built at reasonable (I.e. Honda Accord level) prices?

How about... We eliminate stupid "homeland security" barriers to local airports and make them welcoming community centers? (I know this does not lower costs, but it does lower barriers to entry.)

How about... We shoot all fuddy duddy old grumpy CFIs that insist on teaching flying using hard to understand concepts and tools (like E6Bs) because "that's the way I learned, and new pilots gotta pay their dues!"

How about... we increase CFI pay and improve working conditions so that the best and most effective TEACHERS stay in the profession, eliminating student drops due to ineffective teaching?

How about... We improve flight schools and small airplane FBOs so that we don't lose so many current and POTENTIAL to business incompetence. (FBOs focused on corporate aviation already do this pretty well, we need the same quality on the little airplane side of things.)

None of the above will be easy.
Click to expand...

I'm going to take issue with some of your points, and agree with others.

I wrote a blog for a web site on EMC (not yet published) showing the importance of knowing how to perform a test by hand. My basic points are that you need to know how to do the test manually to know if the software is doing it correctly and so you can demonstrate (as required by ISO/IEC 17025) that the software is working correctly and giving correct answers. The same goes for calculating a XC by hand. You need to know how to do it so you can tell if the tool has done it correctly. At least, you need to have a good ballpark idea of what the answer should be so you have an idea if the tool did it correctly, and if you put the input data into the tool correctly. Now, have I planned a XC by hand recently? No way. But, if necessary, I could.

Part 23 just got re-written. Let's see if that helps. Now, if we could just cut down the liability for 40 year old aircraft we might see manufacturer's insurance rates drop a bit, which MIGHT result in somewhat lower prices for new aircraft. Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Reducing homeland security crap? Not likely to happen, but I'm all for that idea.

E6Bs are easy. Nothing more than a specialized circular slide rule. And they have the advantage of being able to be used with one hand in rough air. Try that with an electronic calculator some time.

CFIs and FBOs? Not enough expertise to comment, but from what I've read here in the past, you might be on to something there.
 
Personally, I find an E6B app on my iPhone MUCH easier to use with one hand while bouncing around in the air and flying with the other hand. Much easier to read the answer correctly as well.

Got not issue with requiring students to learn how to do things on paper first. Makes perfect sense, regardless of whether or not it is or is not learned better that way. Basic are essential. My argument is two fold. First, an archaic code designed to convey weather information over limited bandwidth of yesteryear is in now way better than plain English text. (I'm not buying the argument that it takes up less space on the G1000 screen. That's really reaching.) It also lends itself to inadvertent misinterpretation of weather data. (I don't care how long you've been reading it, it can happen to you too.) It isn't 'dumbing things down' to use plain language instead of codes. It's simply guaranteeing proper understanding. My second beef is that no one seems to be able to separate using a mechanical E6B from learning the basics. If you're going to allow a student to use a mechanical computer (instead of doing the math on paper) then why are you opposed to using an E6B app? Same damn thing. It's just using electrons instead of sliding scales. You still have to understand the principals to put either one to use properly.
 
Thirty some years ago when I took the practical for my A&P the examiner asked some questions related to things that were no longer in practice. I told him up front they were irrelevant now given new technology. We suddenly came to a meeting of the minds. It was a back-and forth and I asked him a few questions he couldn't answer.
that was a good day.

OTOH, the IA test it took was designed so that no one would score 100%. There were a few I had to throw darts at. Passed the first time through, thankfully.




thirty
 
Rykymus said:
Personally, I find an E6B app on my iPhone MUCH easier to use with one hand while bouncing around in the air and flying with the other hand. Much easier to read the answer correctly as well.

Got not issue with requiring students to learn how to do things on paper first. Makes perfect sense, regardless of whether or not it is or is not learned better that way. Basic are essential. My argument is two fold. First, an archaic code designed to convey weather information over limited bandwidth of yesteryear is in now way better than plain English text. (I'm not buying the argument that it takes up less space on the G1000 screen. That's really reaching.) It also lends itself to inadvertent misinterpretation of weather data. (I don't care how long you've been reading it, it can happen to you too.) It isn't 'dumbing things down' to use plain language instead of codes. It's simply guaranteeing proper understanding. My second beef is that no one seems to be able to separate using a mechanical E6B from learning the basics. If you're going to allow a student to use a mechanical computer (instead of doing the math on paper) then why are you opposed to using an E6B app? Same damn thing. It's just using electrons instead of sliding scales. You still have to understand the principals to put either one to use properly.
Click to expand...

Just curious what e6b app do you use?
 
mtuomi said:
Commercial written is full of obsolete stuff.
Who maintains situational awareness by calculating distance from the station by how much your ADF needle moves in 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

That's the one I was thinking of.

Time how long it takes for a 10° bearing change when flying perpendicular to a VOR or NDB to determine your distance from the station. Never, ever found a use for that one, and it's hard to imagine it ever being useful.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm sure there are a few people who learned 4-Course Radio Range . . .
Click to expand...

I venture to guess most pilots don't even know what you're referring to. I never navigated by that method but remember studying it in my fathers old Jeppesen PPL study guide.
 
RalphInCA said:
I agree that flying is fairly safe, and getting safer, but I'd also like to maintain this level of safety while reducing barriers to entry.
Click to expand...
Geez, I hope it doesn't get too much safer. . .
 
I can barely read decoded weather stuff....So much quicker to read the coded stuff. It ain't rocket science.
 
FastEddieB said:
That's the one I was thinking of.

Time how long it takes for a 10° bearing change when flying perpendicular to a VOR or NDB to determine your distance from the station. Never, ever found a use for that one, and it's hard to imagine it ever being useful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if that's all you've got to know where you are, well, you're screwed. :)
 
Thirty said
OTOH, the IA test it took was designed so that no one would score 100%. There were a few I had to throw darts at. Passed the first time through, thankfully.

Me too. I did my IA training at Bakers (No Date Donna) and she said that they don't like a lot of 100's. No problem. I did very well but not stellar. Don't want to do it again.
 
How to read an old hand drawn radar summary chart...

Heh. And I still have one here, printed by the Denver FSS, on a dot matrix printer.

Found it inside an old copy of Aviation Weather.
 
Velocity173 said:
It's only obsolete if you look at it as skills or equipment you'll never use. Even if it's something you never use after training, a lot of information is important to learn to provide a better understanding of basic airmanship
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you here. And this post is a little frustrating to me. I don't mean any disrespect to the OP with what I am about to say, but this sort of thing strikes a little bit of a nerve with me, not just in aviation but everyday life. Technology has come a long way, and does a lot of things for us, which is nice and has many benefits, but is also partially responsible for the dumbing down and laziness of society these days. Many of us younger guys might never even be in an airplane with an ADF that actually still works(which is no longer on any of the written tests by the way), not that I don't think it wouldn't still be cool to learn. But a lot of the "obsolete" stuff like has been said is important to understanding airmanship and being a more rounded pilot IMO. I take interest in the "old way" and I think it makes me better. If we did away with any old ways of doing things or "obsolete" technology, why do you even learn to fly? Hell a cirrus with a G1000 and an AP will pretty much do most of the work for you from what I understand. Raw METARs is something that you should have down pat long before doing a commercial license. And making it easier to become a pilot? I know there is a pilot shortage and will become a real problem, but filling cockpits of jets with guys that got the job since we dumbed it down for them, doesn't make me feel very good sitting back in seat 26A. While we are at it, might as well not teach kids math these days because that is obsolete, they can just use a calculator right?

Like I said, not trying to be difficult or any disrespect to the OP, just my 2 cents.
 
FastEddieB said:
That's the one I was thinking of.

Time how long it takes for a 10° bearing change when flying perpendicular to a VOR or NDB to determine your distance from the station. Never, ever found a use for that one, and it's hard to imagine it ever being useful.
Click to expand...
WHAT?!? You don't do "turn ten twist ten" for your DME arcs to determine your ground speed and extrapolate wind direction and velocity before you get to the FAF?!?
 
FastEddieB said:
That's the one I was thinking of.

Time how long it takes for a 10° bearing change when flying perpendicular to a VOR or NDB to determine your distance from the station. Never, ever found a use for that one, and it's hard to imagine it ever being useful.
Click to expand...

Because there was a time not too long ago where not every station had a DME attached to it (NDBs don't still, obviously) and very few aircraft had DME receivers.

So, if you were unable to tune multiple VORs to triangulate your position, then knowing how to find your distance from a single station was quite useful.
 
TRocket said:
I totally agree with you here. And this post is a little frustrating to me. I don't mean any disrespect to the OP with what I am about to say, but this sort of thing strikes a little bit of a nerve with me, not just in aviation but everyday life. Technology has come a long way, and does a lot of things for us, which is nice and has many benefits, but is also partially responsible for the dumbing down and laziness of society these days. Many of us younger guys might never even be in an airplane with an ADF that actually still works(which is no longer on any of the written tests by the way), not that I don't think it wouldn't still be cool to learn. But a lot of the "obsolete" stuff like has been said is important to understanding airmanship and being a more rounded pilot IMO. I take interest in the "old way" and I think it makes me better. If we did away with any old ways of doing things or "obsolete" technology, why do you even learn to fly? Hell a cirrus with a G1000 and an AP will pretty much do most of the work for you from what I understand. Raw METARs is something that you should have down pat long before doing a commercial license. And making it easier to become a pilot? I know there is a pilot shortage and will become a real problem, but filling cockpits of jets with guys that got the job since we dumbed it down for them, doesn't make me feel very good sitting back in seat 26A. While we are at it, might as well not teach kids math these days because that is obsolete, they can just use a calculator right?

Like I said, not trying to be difficult or any disrespect to the OP, just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Flying a G1000 is different, not easier. Just as much work is spent managing the systems as you would doing it by hand. It's virtually the same number of twists and turns to tune a VOR and CDI, as it is to enter a VOR position in the flight plan (or direct-to). More if you use OBS mode (e.g., holding). It's more work to modify the active leg when you get vectored to intercept the intermediate segment on an approach (if you're hand flying, you just go there).

What it can do is hide a lack of hand-flying proficiency and situational awareness. Which is a real problem if it misbehaves. And glitches are not rare. Automation surprises even less so, and the usual way to deal with that in a critical phase of flight is to turn the damn autopilot off.
 
FastEddieB said:
Operational word bolded above.
Click to expand...

I was responding to you assertion that, "Never, ever found a use for that one, and it's hard to imagine it ever being useful."

Guess you have to be more imaginative.
 
Hacker said:
Because there was a time not too long ago where not every station had a DME attached to it (NDBs don't still, obviously) and very few aircraft had DME receivers.

So, if you were unable to tune multiple VORs to triangulate your position, then knowing how to find your distance from a single station was quite useful.
Click to expand...

It was nearly impossible to fly anywhere there weren't two VORs in range when I started flying in the 90s. So we'll say, "for varying values of time-not-too-long-ago". LOL.

Of course it was also hard to find an ILS that didn't have an LOM and all of the other marker beacons operational, either.
 
Hacker said:
Because there was a time not too long ago where not every station had a DME attached to it (NDBs don't still, obviously) and very few aircraft had DME receivers.

So, if you were unable to tune multiple VORs to triangulate your position, then knowing how to find your distance from a single station was quite useful.
Click to expand...
There are (or used to be) a few NDBs with DME
 
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...
A bit of a necropost, but I doubt that many people who would otherwise be good pilot material are put off by having to learn how to decide METARs. Do something about the cost of purchasing and operating an aircraft and you might make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top