Should we Still Teach Old Tech??

[Buster1]

Is old tech still worth teaching? A brief article that discusses this while looking at the "old school" E6-B.

Thanks for looking.

http://engineout.weebly.com/articles/dust-off-your-e6-b-and-save-a-dinosaur

[TonyK]

My opinion is that there is value in teaching the E6B early on in primary pilot training.  I would think it would give the opportunity to make the computations real to the student on things like wind drift, W/B etc.  However the flip side to that is that new technology makes it impractical for real world use.  Why would I spin the wiz wheel and put it on paper when I can touch a button and have all of my calculations updated in real time against the most current information?  Useful....Yes.  Dead tech....Yes.  After all you very rarely see a slide rule these days.

[Danb]

Sure should, the pilot should have an expectation of what the solution is prior to using the tool. E.g. If the DA should be around 4500 and the electronic device states 15,000 or 500 the light should go on it's incorrect. In accounting the young folks have little clue of the expectation of the financials prior to hitting the print button. 

[M016576]

2 hours ago, Danb said:

Sure should, the pilot should have an expectation of what the solution is prior to using the tool. E.g. If the DA should be around 4500 and the electronic device states 15,000 or 500 the light should go on it's incorrect. In accounting the young folks have little clue of the expectation of the financials prior to hitting the print button. 

I'm not sure that the only path is learning to use a wiz wheel to provide the basic "expectation of a solution."  But working practice solutions with an instructor that knows the systems might... I think you're correct in that a method of developing an estimation ability is required, but I'm not sure that the medium by which we build that expectation/experience needs to be "old school."   

Edited September 3, 2017 by M016576

[Hank]

28 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I'm not sure that the only path is learning to use a wiz wheel to provide the basic "expectation of a solution."  But working practice solutions with an instructor that knows the systems might... I think you're correct in that a method of developing an estimation ability is required, but I'm not sure that the medium by which we build that expectation/experience needs to be "old school."   

Just as long as the medium used to build the expectation of a correct answer isn't the same thing / app that is used to generate the answer, otherwise you're just wasting time with circular reasoning. What do you suggest? I've never used an electronic E6B, what are they like? And will tbey work affer sitting i  the bkttom of my flight back for sevefal years? Batteries die, old batteries corrode, and electronics die . . .

Edited September 3, 2017 by Hank

[1964-M20E]

It should be taught in primary pilot training just like plotting a course on a sectional chart, figuring all the magnetic and wind corrections necessary and doing a W&B by hand.  Yes many of us rely heavily on the magenta line, GPS, fuel flow meters, W&B apps and EFBs to get us from A to B on our magic carpets.  However, knowing how to get there without all the wiz bang gadgets does have its place a least you have done it and if needed you could dust it off and do it in a pinch.

[M016576]

14 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

It should be taught in primary pilot training just like plotting a course on a sectional chart, figuring all the magnetic and wind corrections necessary and doing a W&B by hand.  Yes many of us rely heavily on the magenta line, GPS, fuel flow meters, W&B apps and EFBs to get us from A to B on our magic carpets.  However, knowing how to get there without all the wiz bang gadgets does have its place a least you have done it and if needed you could dust it off and do it in a pinch.

I was in one of the last classes that had to learn celestial navigation at the Naval Academy.  I can't say that during my 12 years in the navy, and 2 1/2 years at sea, (and certainly not in my 6 years in the USAF) I ever had to navigate by the stars... but then again, I'm a pilot....

at some point, the technology becomes outdated, even if the underlying fundamentals are important.  Is anyone learning how to use a Loran any longer?  All the functionality of a wiz wheel (e6b) is easily accomplished on an iPhone.  Or iPad, or in the "calculators" tab of a IFD, or GTN.  Or on the main display of a Aspen, or G5.... most of us have at least 2 devices with us in the plane that can do all the calculations required, in very minimal time, and with greater accuracy.

those Cel. Nav plots took about an hour to get a single fix, and your position was typically only accurate to about 20 or so miles.  And that assumed your math was sound.....  the E-6B is kind of the same thing- just a logorithm based wheel with a grid... the sort of thing that Erik probably loved during flight training, but I know I "endured" to get to the more "fun" aspects of flying- as even when I was learning, there were more accurate and easier methods.  Did learning the E-6 make me a better pilot? I don't know.... so long as you can learn fuel burn, ranges, the difference between true and indicated airspeed and how wind vectors influence course/heading, I don't know that the medium of an E-6 (wiz wheel) is required.  Perhaps a simple application, with computer based training and good old fashioned "draw it out" could be the answer.  So long as the understanding is there...

[carusoam]

Part of the background knowledge we pick up along the way...  

the more you know, the better off you are...

One nice thing about old tech... it is finite.  You can actually learn all of the functions of the E6B.  If it was important enough to get a place on the E6B, it must be important enough to understand for flying.

Looking forwards... Once you have all the E6B knowledge, find what app, or instrument or GPS box that you have that can give you the same details in real time, or easier or quicker...

If going electronic device... Sporties lists all the various functions the E6B offers.  The first item on the list...  Density Altitude.

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-new-electronic-e6b-flight-computer.html?utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Training&adpos=1t1&creative=190094760237&device=t&matchtype=b&network=g&gclid=Cj0KEQjw0K7NBRC7oave4cOg6JkBEiQARqotEc3vT8etHKR1kRHPdp4hsDaV6PXz6fppy0RdiImvONEaAuFi8P8HAQ

Kind of a reminder that density altitude must be important to know something about.  If not familiar, read up on how DA effects T/O distances and climb rates...

Old tech may be like learning or reviewing Latin or other dead languages...  But when does a dead language keep you from being in the trees off the end of a short runway on a hot day?

Nice writing, Buster!

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Best regards,

-a-

[M016576]

It's an infinite debate, really.  And the answee is most likely somewhere in the middle.  The tool (E6B) represents what it's designers deemed as important at the time of its creation.  It also symbolizes what we, who learned on that tool, equate to knowledge in the subject.  But does that alone justify its continued use?  Again, I don't know the answer- but I'm willing to bet we could make due just fine without teaching it- and replacing the time it takes to learn the E-6B itself with academics or knowledge designed to supplement, enhance and replace the E-6B.  It's not the knowledge or underlying principles that are obsolete... just the tool itself.

[Mooneymite]

21 minutes ago, M016576 said:

I was in one of the last classes that had to learn celestial navigation at the Naval Academy.  I can't say that during my 12 years in the navy, and 2 1/2 years at sea, (and certainly not in my 6 years in the USAF) I ever had to navigate by the stars... but then again, I'm a pilot....

Long ago,  the third pilot on the P-3 had to relieve the navigator, so all P-3 pilots did celestial nav school.  While I had done all the pilot nav stuff when getting my wings, celestial school was much more technical.  Learning to use a bubble sextant while rocking and rolling in the back of a plane was interesting and challenging, but a lot of hard work.

1000 NM out over the N. Atlantic ridge where the subs hid, there was no loran, so celestial was about all there was.  Using it we could be "accurate enough" to avoid interceptions by US fighters when penetrating the ADIZ returning to base.

About all I can say is that GPS is a terrific development and I hope we never have to go back!  I can't imagine any of those skills transfer.  Down with the old, up with the new.  You don't want to be where a sun line and a PLOP is all you have.

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Training time is always limited, so unless instruction in E6B use illustrated something essential and not demonstrable otherwise I'd skip it.  

Similarly you wouldn't teach someone about using telegraph systems as a prerequisite to operating a cell phone, would you?   

Want to show effect of crosswind on heading versus ground track?  Easy--Point out how the little airplane is crabbing into the wind along the magenta track on the MFD.  

 

 

[steingar]

The E6B was used for preflight. You can't use it when your hands are full of airplane.  I have a name for folks who would use a slide rule in the age of computers, but it isn't nice. I used a pocket calculator from Sporty's in place of the E6B, and I bet those calculations are available in Foreflight. They may also be apps you can put on your phone. What if it all breaks? Stay on the ground.

I navigate with an iPad. A hugely important task with no paper backup of any kind. Yes, I have lots of redundancy. But if I can navigate with a bit of consumer electronics, why in the name of Odin do I have to use a slide rule for my preflight? The only reason I can see is that some folks learned it when they learned to fly and are continuing the practice.

[Andy95W]

If I were to ever go back to being a flight instructor, I think I would take 15 minutes to show the whiz wheel in solving very basic time, distance, and fuel problems.  Then I would put it away and show all of the other ways to do the same thing that are easier, faster, and more accurate.

But I do think our history and legacy is important, and I'd want my students to be able to see an old E6-B and say, "Yeah, my instructor showed me how to use one of those back when I was a primary student."

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, steingar said:

The E6B was used for preflight. You can't use it when your hands are full of airplane. 

I wish someone had told tne DPE that before my PPL checkride just 10 years ago. We started the planned XC, then he diverted me to somewhere else. First a rough turn in that general direction, then use plotter to determine the correct true course, then the E6B to figure crosswind correction and time & fuel required to reach the new destinatiom. Then the all-important question:  check the calculated wind correction and speed, when will we arrive, and do we have enough fuel to get there?

Wish I had known that a lowly Student Pilot couldn't spin the whiz-wheel while flying the plane. But he liked my answers, and we flew long enough to confirm them (also using the the E6B). Then it was time for maneuvers . . . This was in May 2007, and the G430W was already considered "standard equipment." Could I do this again right now? No. Was it helpful then? Yes. Should I be able to do rudimentary things with it now? Yes. It would have been very valuable when I had the total electrical failure had I not been below the clouds in a known area, with the Ohio River to folow home.

[larryb]

NO. Train the way we fly in the real world. Teach the theory behind the calculations. I do not know how to use the old E6B. I have an electronic one that I only used for FAA testing. In the real world I use GP to plan my flights. If all my electronics go dark in the plane would I reach for an old E6B? No, I would fly the plane and find someplace to land.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, M016576 said:

I was in one of the last classes that had to learn celestial navigation at the Naval Academy.  I can't say that during my 12 years in the navy, and 2 1/2 years at sea, (and certainly not in my 6 years in the USAF) I ever had to navigate by the stars... but then again, I'm a pilot....

at some point, the technology becomes outdated, even if the underlying fundamentals are important.  Is anyone learning how to use a Loran any longer?  All the functionality of a wiz wheel (e6b) is easily accomplished on an iPhone.  Or iPad, or in the "calculators" tab of a IFD, or GTN.  Or on the main display of a Aspen, or G5.... most of us have at least 2 devices with us in the plane that can do all the calculations required, in very minimal time, and with greater accuracy.

those Cel. Nav plots took about an hour to get a single fix, and your position was typically only accurate to about 20 or so miles.  And that assumed your math was sound.....  the E-6B is kind of the same thing- just a logorithm based wheel with a grid... the sort of thing that Erik probably loved during flight training, but I know I "endured" to get to the more "fun" aspects of flying- as even when I was learning, there were more accurate and easier methods.  Did learning the E-6 make me a better pilot? I don't know.... so long as you can learn fuel burn, ranges, the difference between true and indicated airspeed and how wind vectors influence course/heading, I don't know that the medium of an E-6 (wiz wheel) is required.  Perhaps a simple application, with computer based training and good old fashioned "draw it out" could be the answer.  So long as the understanding is there...

No kidding - I had no idea that star navigation was still taught when you - we - were at usna?  Who was teaching that?  What department?

I can operate a slide ruler!  And an abicus.

Nah I was neither challenged nor did I enjoy learning e6b.  Nor in electronic form.  A bunch of that stuff I sidestepped by using a scientific calculator.

i would think to some degree learning some old school stuff makes pilots to be think more deeply about the concepts of fuel, winds aloft, etc... so they build a bit of intuition as to how it all effects flight so it's in your gut so to speak.

we still teach a lot of technical computations to budding engineers even though they might think that heck why do I need how to do a trig substation integration if "I'll never do that in my career" and sure mathematica or maple can do symbolic calculus on the computer.

ok / why did I need to learn and demonstrate eights on pylons for my commercial even though I would never do that for real . Cuz it builds a certain kind of aerodynamic maneuvering skills into my intuitive gut. 

I learned loran for my ppl written knowing it was absurd because it was already scheduled to be decommissioned.

There was a time not to long ago when every college educated person was expected to know Latin.  No matter what major.

when I started my phd it was expected we - even a math phd - could read and translate technical papers in two of a menu of several languages that included French, German, Russian, and a few more. (The languages of the other math power houses). I already spoke French fluently so I planned to take Russian (my gma spoke Russian as she was a young teenager when she emigrated during wwi).  But the requirement for two languages was lowered to one during my first year and I was plenty busy and never got around to it.  Shortly after I graduated the requirement for even a second language was dropped - and sure enough English seems quite sufficient for doing science internationally / all the journals and most conferences.  In the last year I have been to Denmark, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, England, and all the conferences were in English.

as more new stuff must be learned some old stuff must be retired.  I was just chair of my schools differentisl equations re-evaluation committee - something that happens to all the big courses periodically for a good reason.  What is modern and currently relevant evolves over time.  A 15 week semester is at most...15 weeks...and the average college kids brain can only absorb information so fast / not to mention professors can only talk so fast.  So if you want to add something new you need to look if you will drop something else or perhaps demphasize it / i.e. The negotiations involve perhaps Some topic might be going from say 3 full lecture periods to 2 or 2.5.  And correspondingly how involved are the problem sets.  There is a lot of compromise then between the client departments - Chem, ee, mech e, physics, etc saying don't cut my favorite topic but please add this new thing.

i would think the Faa is going through the same pedogogy in keeping their syllabus modern.

Edited September 4, 2017 by aviatoreb

[M016576]

9 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

No kidding - I had no idea that star navigation was still taught when you - we - were at usna?  Who was teaching that?  What department?

I can operate a slide ruler!  And an abicus.

Nah I was neither challenged nor did I enjoy learning e6b.  Nor in electronic form.  A bunch of that stuff I sidestepped by using a scientific calculator.

i would think to some degree learning some old school stuff makes pilots to be think more deeply about the concepts of fuel, winds aloft, etc... so they build a bit of intuition as to how it all effects flight so it's in your gut so to speak.

we still teach a lot of technical computations to budding engineers even though they might think that heck why do I need how to do a trig substation integration if "I'll never do that in my career" and sure mathematica or maple can do symbolic calculus on the computer.

ok / why did I need to learn and demonstrate eights on pylons for my commercial even though I would never do that for real . Cuz it builds a certain kind of aerodynamic maneuvering skills into my intuitive gut. 

I learned loran for my ppl written knowing it was absurd because it was already scheduled to be decommissioned.

 

Cel. Nav was part of seamanship for the either 2nd semester for plebes, or it was first semester for 3/c midshipmen.  It was the professional development course while we were there... taught in Luce Hall, naturally.  Initially we learned how to shoot the stars using a sextant, but for our exams the points were provided, we just had to do the math.  Which was fairly involved- lots of flipping back and forth between almanacs to get the right points, pat/longs, and apply the appropriate transformations/conversions.  They stopped teaching it in 2000, or thereabouts, if I remember correctly.

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Cel. Nav was part of seamanship for the either 2nd semester for plebes, or it was first semester for 3/c midshipmen.  It was the professional development course while we were there... taught in Luce Hall, naturally.  Initially we learned how to shoot the stars using a sextant, but for our exams the points were provided, we just had to do the math.  Which was fairly involved- lots of flipping back and forth between almanacs to get the right points, pat/longs, and apply the appropriate transformations/conversions.  They stopped teaching it in 2000, or thereabouts, if I remember correctly.

Cool!  I didn't know!

Celestial nav always makes me think of the greatest fear of celestial nav that I know of... the escape from the 1912 Antarctica Endurance ship wreck in Antarctica.  Three guys managed to sail a dingy 600 miles in high seas to elephant island a whaling colony.  In high seas and a small boat one guy would have to hold the other guy steady against the mast while trying to sight stars over the lips of large swells.  ... when it happened to be clear enough.  And somehow they found it!

i just recently saw a BBC documentary where in WWII an old British army vet was describing how they would cross the Saharan in conveys at night by celestial nav.

[Mooneymite]

Any pilot should be able to come up with a rough lat/long anywhere in the northern hemisphere with just an accurate watch, the sun followed by a clear night sky. 

No E6 required. 

[DonMuncy]

When I was in high school, I was in the Interscholastic League slide rule competition. It is a shame that knowledge is now of no value.

When I have a design project going I still drag out my T square and triangles, although they have computer programs that will do it all for you. 

I still know how to use an E6B (kinda).

Would I go back. NO WAY

[M016576]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Cool!  I didn't know!

Celestial nav always makes me think of the greatest fear of celestial nav that I know of... the escape from the 1912 Antarctica Endurance ship wreck in Antarctica.  Three guys managed to sail a dingy 600 miles in high seas to elephant island a whaling colony.  In high seas and a small boat one guy would have to hold the other guy steady against the mast while trying to sight stars over the lips of large swells.  ... when it happened to be clear enough.  And somehow they found it!

i just recently saw a BBC documentary where in WWII an old British army vet was describing how they would cross the Saharan in conveys at night by celestial nav.

Shackleton' adventure!  That guy was one tough hombre!  A few years after I ejected and got run over by the Kitty Hawk, I got hooked on these stories about near death, and extreme survival situations.  I came across the endurance story, which blended two of my interests together: ships and extreme survival.  For those that haven't looked into the story, I highly recommend it.  Also, the re-created MacKinley's scotch is pretty good too, if you can find it!

[Hank]

We read a book about Shackleton in one of my MS Engineering classes. An amazing story! But I will be so happy to not experience anything similarly amazing . . . I like my flights simple and boring, with amazing views and destinations.

[carusoam]

I was part of the last class to be taught....

1) Hand drawn tech drawings...  autocad was for the youngsters...  these youngsters are now about 50 years old...

2) use of the slide rule...  Mom called her calculator, a computer...

3) fortran programming using punch cards...

4) typing using a mechanical typewriter.  Brother Daniel... 'claws, not paws, boys...'

5) ADF and DME arc approaches

 

Part of the first class to use...

1) calculators in high school.

2) PCs in college.

3) GPS in my first GA aircraft.

 

Thanks to the pro teachers here, I realize there is only so much that can be taught and learned by the existing student population...

If WAAS approaches are the new ones being added, something is probably going to fall off the back of the training syllabus...

 

Since we still do a fair amount of risk analysis regarding what is included and what can be excluded from the syllabus...

1) How deadly is it if a pilot doesn't have E6B skills.

2) Can he train himself with the instructions included (printed on it) with the wiz wheel...

3) Can the pilot use his own risk analysis tools and decide on his own to carry two electronic devices or a single mechanical E6B.

 

Thanks to Buster for bringing this topic up. But, Now isn't the time to buy stock in the E6B manufacturing companies!  

I had always wondered why I was learning some old things I would never use.  When there were new things that I couldn't afford to use... this describes why knowing more, is better than knowing less... the future is so unpredictable...

Continue to learn as much as you can on your own outside whatever the syllabus covers...

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

9 hours ago, M016576 said:

Shackleton' adventure!  That guy was one tough hombre!  A few years after I ejected and got run over by the Kitty Hawk, I got hooked on these stories about near death, and extreme survival situations.  I came across the endurance story, which blended two of my interests together: ships and extreme survival.  For those that haven't looked into the story, I highly recommend it.  Also, the re-created MacKinley's scotch is pretty good too, if you can find it!

Yikes!  You got run over by an aircraft carrier?!! I bet that's quite a story.

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, carusoam said:

2) use of the slide rule...  Mom called her calculator, a computer...

3) fortran programming using punch cards...

4) typing using a mechanical typewriter.  Brother Daniel... 'claws, not paws, boys...'

5) ADF and DME arc approaches

 

Part of the first class to use...

1) calculators in high school.

2) PCs in college.

3) GPS in my first GA aircraft.

 

Thanks to the pro teachers here, I realize there is only so much that can be taught and learned by the existing student population...

If WAAS approaches are the new ones being added, something is probably going to fall off the back of the training syllabus...

 

Since we still do a fair amount of risk analysis regarding what is included and what can be excluded from the syllabus...

1) How deadly is it if a pilot doesn't have E6B skills.

2) Can he train himself with the instructions included (printed on it) with the wiz wheel...

3) Can the pilot use his own risk analysis tools and decide on his own to carry two electronic devices or a single mechanical E6B.

 

Thanks to Buster for bringing this topic up. But, Now isn't the time to buy stock in the E6B manufacturing companies!  

I had always wondered why I was learning some old things I would never use.  When there were new things that I couldn't afford to use... this describes why knowing more, is better than knowing less... the future is so unpredictable...

Continue to learn as much as you can on your own outside whatever the syllabus covers...

Best regards,

-a-

A syllabus is the minimum set of things that the syllabus makers think ALL the students should learn for one reason or another, usually either because it is a specific skill they will need, or it is considered pedagogically important since it helps toward the general education set regarding the topic at hand, often as segway to other topics that are considered critical.  On that second point, think of waxing cars, wax on, wax off, repeat, and repeat...as the method to teach the karate kid to fight by building the basic elements of the skills deep into his brain.

As for calculators in HS, I am not a fan....  The students I get in college are much more reliant on them and much less thinking about the answer than they used to, even for error trapping.  What's a million divided by a thousand ... 200...the calculator said so.

As for your mom saying that a calculator was a computer, ...the language was still changing I guess. At this point, I bet we all saw the movie "hidden figures" where the ladies with the job description of adding numbers all day were called  "calculators".  Here is a picture at the bottom of a room of ladies during WWII at los alamos that we all calculators by job description and the room of such people was called a computer.  Partial answers on pieces of paper were collected in the center island on a table on wheels that looks like a desert tray, called a "bus"...and that my friends is how the bus on a computer chipset was named.

As for a good education, vs a minimum education of a syllabus, a wise professor once said (and I have heard it repeated many times, from different places so I wonder who actually said it because it has been repeated alot), never let your classroom experience get in the way of becoming educated.