When is enough, enough?

[aviatoreb]

Very much true. I can't imagine how airlines flew DC-6's and even 707's over the Atlantic in the 50's and 60's.

 

It is impressive - but for one thing - didn't those planes on those missions in that era have something like 3 people in the cockpit working the problem.  3 or more professionals with different roles.  Pilot(s).  Navigator.  Engineer?  

 

SPIFR in a small airplane some technology helps.

[aviatoreb]

 

I don't get these anti tech rants at all. If you really want to fly just like Grandpa did, there are no FARs stopping you from doing that. If you buy a Mooney and it has glass panels, auto pilots and radios in it, rip it all out, save the weight and maintenance and fly just like it were 1920. It is permitted. If this is just bitterness about ADS-B compliance, remember, you only need that to go into radar controlled airspace (along with the already mandated radio and transponder) and above 10,000 ft. Fly from grass field to grass field just like Granddad did.

 

I say bring on the tech.

 

That's it - Grandpa didn't expect to fly into class Bravo on an IFR flight plan NARCO in his hand prop no electric Piper Cub.

 

I got my ADSB-out complaint transponder 3 months or so ago and I love it - there are benefits today - notably traffic.  What surprised me is I was the first at the relatively large shop I frequent at KBTV.  They had to buy testing equipment to set me up - which of course they did expecting I will not be the last even if I was the first.

[Bennett]

I truly enjoy all my high tech avionics, but while I feel they have made me a safer pilot (in general), my rule is to use all the new avionics, coupled to the autopilot going to my destination, but to hand fly back, monitoring the same avionics. Hand / eye coordination gets some exercise, and I can practice the multi-tasking role of flying and navigating. If the workload gets a bit high, I engage the autopilot, until I sort out the problem.

[bonal]

No need to get testy were just talking here it's not like the govt is forcing us, oh wait they are. I just don't understand why I can't use a portable device. It would be just as easy for ATC to confirm my out broadcast as they verify my mode C. I can afford the portable solution but not so easy for the installed one. As a group we seem to all agree that high cost is one of the reasons more people don't fly and yet some seem to think its no big deal to force this expensive upgrade. And what is with the 10,000 foot limit why not 180 like for class A where you must be IFR anyway. I suppose since there ain't no mountains near D.C. They figured that's enough altitude. And for what it's worth 2 cents I reckon I'd bet my life on those old pilots that could navigate the globe without all our wis bang tech over some simulator trained youngster. Those before us already had a computer it was between their ears.

[cliffy]

Back in the old days as they say- it was pilot, copilot and flight engineer. Navigators went they way of prop airplanes over water. 

The F/E handled all of the a/c systems as is done automatically now in 2 man cockpits. The two pilots handled all the other flying stuff even back then. 

ADS-B was written as a "one plan fits all" system from 747s in the air to ground vehicles on the airport. Yes, all ground vehicles on the major airports will be equipped with ADS-B out also. Why do you suppose they need a WAAS requirement on ADS-B? For the ground vehicles in low vis conditions. Then again, a WAAS motor really is not expensive to the equipment manufacturers when bought in quantity.

The requirement for a "single point of entry of the transponder code" is one of the hindrances to a portable unit as is the way the OUT antenna requirement is written.

Secondly, the FAA may have an issue with the fact that with ADS-B THEY no longer own the equipment to perform the "location" aspect of the traffic separation equation (they owned and controlled the RADAR system). We do in our airplanes with the OUT solution, therefore, the onerous and expensive certification requirements.

[bonal]

Thanks for the explanation Cliffy but I still don't understand why not to 17,999 I can live without class B access and can't fly to 180 anyway but I need a higher ceiling limit that 10k unless I just buzz around my own area. I fear this requirement may price me out of the game or perhaps I can find a cheap A&P do half ass annuals to make the difference. That would not be my first choice.

[flyboy0681]

 

The F/E handled all of the a/c systems as is done automatically now in 2 man cockpits. 

 

I believe the flight engineer position was required for civil aircraft by the CAA. This explains why the KC-135, which is very similar in design to the 707, has a two man flight crew.

[aviatoreb]

Back in the old days as they say- it was pilot, copilot and flight engineer. Navigators went they way of prop airplanes over water. 

 

Who operated the sextant?

[carusoam]

Summarizing this thread is challenging.

(1) 2020 requirements are pretty well understood.

(2) new equipment will be required.

(3) few want to have to pay for the equipment.

(4) portable equipment seems to have the required skills at a lower price compared with installed equipment.

(5) certified equipment is more expensive.

(6) There is no certified portable equipment. Too many challenges with power and antenna output and shadowing?

(7) some of us don't feel that certified equipment should be required to handle the separation of aircraft.

(8) nobody truely wants to return back to the days of analog equipment.

(9) I tried to look up what MSers were thinking when that useless Mode C went into effect requiring new transponders...unfortunately there wasn't any MS or Internet back then. Opinions were only shared in monthly magazines under letters to the editor.

Today we share a discussion amongst some pretty bright individuals... Doctors, lawyers, engineers (electrical, mechanical and computer), a safety expert and pilots of all kinds. We have a near full range of age represented. Anyone here younger than 30 or older than 90?

Did I miss anyone?

Did I miss anything?

Best regards,

-a-

[philipneeper]

Summarizing this thread is challenging.

(1) 2020 requirements are pretty well understood.

(2) new equipment will be required.

(3) few want to have to pay for the equipment.

(4) portable equipment seems to have the required skills at a lower price compared with installed equipment.

(5) certified equipment is more expensive.

(6) There is no certified portable equipment. Too many challenges with power and antenna output and shadowing?

(7) some of us don't feel that certified equipment should be required to handle the separation of aircraft.

(8) nobody truely wants to return back to the days of analog equipment.

(9) I tried to look up what MSers were thinking when that useless Mode C went into effect requiring new transponders...unfortunately there wasn't any MS or Internet back then. Opinions were only shared in monthly magazines under letters to the editor.

Today we share a discussion amongst some pretty bright individuals... Doctors, lawyers, engineers (electrical, mechanical and computer), a safety expert and pilots of all kinds. We have a near full range of age represented. Anyone here younger than 30 or older than 90?

Did I miss anyone?

Did I miss anything?

Best regards,

-a-

I'm 27

[carusoam]

You have covered a lot of distance in 27 years!

Anyone else?

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

Today we share a discussion amongst some pretty bright individuals... Doctors, lawyers, engineers (electrical, mechanical and computer), a safety expert and pilots of all kinds. We have a near full range of age represented. Anyone here younger than 30 or older than 90?

Did I miss anyone?

 

Yes. You missed me. An average dumbass with no particular qualifications or credentials. I suspect I'm not alone.

[carusoam]

I'm with you Dave, but couldn't find the words...

I think we fit in the pilots of all types category.

I'm just happy to be in this crowd.

Best regards,

-a-

[bonal]

I'm with you Dave, but couldn't find the words...

I think we fit in the pilots of all types category.

I'm just happy to be in this crowd.

Best regards,

-a-

And you must be doing something right your flying an O

[scottfromiowa]

Yes. You missed me. An average dumbass with no particular qualifications or credentials. I suspect I'm not alone.

Put on your happy face.

[flyboy0681]

I started my career as an Army pilot, punching kneeboard stop watches and using my issued E6B to compute ground speed, fuel consumption checks and all sorts of stuff. We did single VOR intersection holding by cross-tuning the VOR on the inbound leg, while starting and stopping that stop-watch and adjusting the outbound leg to get that perfect one-minute inbound leg. ADF approaches with an RMI were a "norm." "Push the head, pull the tail" - no big deal. Never an autopilot, always tuning and identifying ... all part of the busy workload

 

 

I really didn't know your history and I'm in awe.

[M016576]

Flying used to be a LOT more work than it is now ...

Unfortunately, now all I do is sit and watch the automation, and worry that every noise I hear is the engine about to come apart. It was a lot more stress free when I was actively engaged in the flying sans autopilot, GPSS, GPS, moving maps, etc!!!

Edit: ignorance was/is bliss!!!!!

[DaV8or]

Flying used to be a LOT more work than it is now ...

 

So, having experience that is sort of before and after, do you find yourself now dependent on automation? In your current day job, how much do you hand fly the plane, take off and land the plane by hand and make visual approaches? Does company policy allow very much old fashion stick and rudder?

[Alan Fox]

Time marches on , so does technology , shit or get off the pot....

[bonal]

Time marches on , so does technology , shit or get off the pot....

Spoken like a true Jersey Boy, I don't think we have a choice but usually I will shit then get off the pot. I think the issue being discussed is whether the smarter tech is making us dumber and less skilled as a culture. I'm saying it does.

[bonal]

Please don't misunderstand I think there are uncountable benefits from tech and if used properly are a good thing but it's like engineering if you don't have to learn the principals and just start pushing buttons on a computer you will lose those skills. I had to learn the math before I was allowed to push the button.

[jkhirsch]

24

 

I'm worried less about the persistence of technology than the persistence of profits for all of those who benefit from us being required to have it.

[cujet]

Oh boy, this is my kind of thread!

 

Clearly, aviation technology is not mature. With that in mind, technology alone has the potential to address a number of GA fatality causes. 

 

1) VFR into IMC should never be a death sentence. There is no dispute that pilot skill is necessary, however, I see that as a separate issue. Clearly the FAA has created an environment where the best modern technology is prohibited from GA aircraft. We need to address the continuing loss of life due to VFR to IMC. One major component is technology. You can never train 100% of the pilot population to behave properly due to well known human factors.

 

  a) With that in mind a "save me" button should be encouraged. Dynon already has something like that in the well proven, yet prohibited, Skyview system.

 

2) CFIT is another area where not only can technology "help", it can absolutely prevent disaster, if given limited emergency authority to address the issue. 

 

3) Weather minimums can also be aircraft/pilot specific and can be displayed "live" as "no go" areas. Something as simple as a dashed yellow band around an area of a storm that clearly exceeds an aircraft's capabilities. A normally aspirated "J" can't outclimb a towering storm, for example. Yet our Gulfstream G550 can easily do so. 

 

Even something as simple as running out of fuel can be addressed properly with technology. Through incredibly accurate indication and through the possibility of reserve fuel systems. Our Twin Engine Eurocopter EC-135 has a unique set up that has saved lives, possibly even my own! Each engine pulls fuel from a "hopper". That hopper is fed by gravity and by other systems. When the main tank is finally dry, each hopper is a different size. There is 15 minutes of RH engine "reserve" fuel once the LH engine flames out. AND, man-o-man does that thing let you know that fuel is low. 

 

(I was a passenger in the back, my pilot chose to cross the water in spite of the low fuel indication. He was determined to "press on" Right up until the RH engine started acting up. Then it was an emergency course back to land and a premature landing)

[cujet]

24

 

I'm worried less about the persistence of technology than the persistence of profits for all of those who benefit from us being required to have it.

 

Much of it should never be a requirement! However, we should also not prevent installation of proven and inexpensive systems. The certification monster needs to be tamed. 

[jkhirsch]

Much of it should never be a requirement! However, we should also not prevent installation of proven and inexpensive systems. The certification monster needs to be tamed. 

Agreed...I'll take as much technology as is fiscally feasible, but there's a long list of people with their hands out at the end of the rainbow.