![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Thanks for all the discussion on this topic. Regardless of your personal opinion on the subject, this is a topic of high relevance due to the rapid changes in technology taking place in the way we fly. I agree it is a subject that is very relevent. One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics. Automation has the potential to allow us to focus on the important tasks and let the computer take care of the mundane tasks. I think you would find that in order to know the student had a full grasp of the fundamentals you would end up teaching them the "old" way. Automation is great. Computers are great, hell they allow us to have this conversation. But just like I still need to be able to ask a local fellow flyer a question from time to time there will be times when computers and the internet aren't going to be available to the pilot. I once had a student many years ago who computed all headings with great precision, by hand using an E6B, only to find that he had reversed all headings by 180 degress. He was all caught up in the details of the computation that he forgot to see the big picture. With automation that is less likely to happen. However, if it is not taught properly, it can also be harmful. The exact same thing could easily happen in a flight planning program or even worse. He types in the wrong airport code and flys the plan without catching it. There was an article in a recent aviation magazine (I can't remember the magazine title) where they compared students who learned to fly in glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments, and the conclusion was that students who learned in the glass environment were just as good as or even better than the previous generation. I'm sure they did. I also wouldn't be surprised if those trained in glass didn't transition easier to steam. So obviously a discussion on modernizing training methods is something that need to be taken seriously. The problem is there are lots of different flight planning programs and services out there. Which one are you going to teach. All the ones I've used seem to be designed so that someone who understands the "old" way can figure them out. The flip side of that is that if you teach someone via a specific program are they going to be able to understand the operation of another program or even the same one after a major revision? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flight Planning PYM to DEN | William Snow | Piloting | 22 | December 12th 05 04:24 PM |
Planning a flight | Chris | Instrument Flight Rules | 23 | February 23rd 05 09:15 PM |
Pre-flight planning really is worth doing. | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | August 25th 04 10:17 PM |
Flight planning at the lower flight levels | Peter R. | Piloting | 2 | March 16th 04 02:39 AM |
Flight Planning Software | Joe Allbritten | Piloting | 2 | December 21st 03 02:29 PM |