Maps are obsolete

[Sam Rutherford]

Paper maps to clarify!

Discuss...

[welshwaffu]

No way! I've never ended up a lane with grass down the middle using an OS map unlike my Garmin. If I'm going somewhere new in the car I'll look at an atlas, boot up the GPS and check its suggested route and always take my brain.

[charliegolf]

No they are not.

CG

[eckhard]

I like maps.

In a big jet, EFIS/iPad, etc. are great but suffer from zooming and scaling problems. Anyway, my airline gets upset if you draw a chinagraph line on the ND.

I carry an atlas to identify mountains, rivers and cities.

In light aircraft, I navigate primarily by reference to a carefully pre-folded and suitably-marked topo chart or sectional. I admit that my iPad is sitting on the back seat for occasional reference, particularly when close to CAS. Just confirming your track and groundspeed can be a great comfort.

So, to answer your question: for me, maps are definitely not obsolete but more modern aids should be used as and when required.

[Heston]

Discuss...

Well first off I'd say that you must mean 'paper maps are obsolete'. I love the map that I get on my tablet with a little airplane symbol to show where I am.
The map as a concept, however it is displayed, is a supreme achievement of the human intellect. As a way of navigating they seem to have been invented in the late middle ages - prior to that if, say, you wished to go from London to York, you took a list of towns and villages to go through and relied on local knowledge. Earlier maps exist but weren't particularly expected to help you find your way. It was the concept of scale and representation accurately of bearings that made them useful tools.

[Sam Rutherford]

Interesting. My thinking is the opposite, that "paper maps should be used as and when required."

And that would only be once you had total electrical failure, and your GPS, and your ipad, and your phone batteries also went flat. The level of electronic redundancy in the average cockpit today is close to (if not at) infallible.

Of course, you'd then discover you don't actually have the right map anyway...

Even the idea of 'useful for pre-flight planning' or 'situational awareness' is moot given the topographic information now electronically available.

I'm surprised to hear the contrary. I haven't flown with someone using a map as primary resource in at least 10 years, actually probably more.

[Heston]

Charts, not maps.

[eckhard]

'm surprised to hear the contrary. I haven't flown with someone using a map as primary resource in at least 10 years, actually probably more.

That's coz you haven't flown with me!

I totally agree that modern aids should be made full use of. I have no intrinsic problem with anybody who wants to use the 'electronic gizmo' as a prime source. I just prefer the look and feel of a paper map. Also, I can fold it and wedge it between my knee and the control wheel which is a tad uncomfortable with an iPad. Also, I can throw it in the rear cockpit when I join the circuit, which might upset an iPad. I can fold it cleverly and use it as a screen to practice IF. The ipad is too small, heavy and prone to falling over.

[mothminor]

And that would only be once you had total electrical failure


My own little aeroplane has no electrics, good job I have a 1/4 mill map. :)

[Chris Martyr]

Of course, you'd then discover you don't actually have the right map anyway...


Sam really,,,,,,!:)
May I assume that you are the same Sam Rutherford who organised the Ushuaia Air Rally.
So are you trying to tell us all that all those 'old pilots' ;) who are taking part are just magenta line followers ?
Of course , they probably are using tablet devices , but in the event of them freezing over , or overheating then I don't think for a second that they wouldn't have the relevant charts to hand. You wouldn't allow entrants who hadn't done their homework would you mate ?...:O


Can't see any of them being nominated for the Bill Woodhams award if they hadn't..:ok:

[chevvron]

And that would only be once you had total electrical failure


My own little aeroplane has no electrics, good job I have a 1/4 mill map. :)

I could never understand the opposition to using a quarter mil instead of the 'standard' half mil.
All instructors all seem to trot out the same spiel 'you shouldn't use one because there is too much detail and it confuses students.'
Where did they get that from? I used one from day 1 of my PPL course at Cambridge and I never got confused, in fact I found it helped as there were clear landmarks on the quarter mil which weren't on the half mil.(On cross countries, I also carried a USAF One mil as it had all the runway patterns of all airfields in East Anglia, both in use and disused, marked on it)
Is it something instructors are 'taught' to say on their instructor course?

[Sam Rutherford]

Thanks Chris! :-)

We do give everyone charts, but it's out of a feeling that we should, rather than a belief they'll use them.

Indeed, throwing a bit of fuel on the fire, I actually think that using a chart rather than an electronic alternative is poor airmanship.

Anything that reduces pilot workload and is perfectly up to date all the time (and even pings up notam zones automatically - love that one) should be used. Artificially making life more difficult than it needs to be cannot be a good thing.

At it's most simple, assuming equal competence with both, a pilot is less likely to get lost/infringe airspace/use wrong frequency etc. etc. if they are using an ipad rather than a chart.

Then, really throwing my hat in the ring, I'm a firm believer that both driverless cars and driverless planes will greatly increase safety. I'll be keeping my classic sports car or old spam-can - but I'll be aware that in using them I'm making a choice of fun/interest/challenge over safety.

[ChickenHouse]

Number One: paper charts are not obsolete, at the contrary, and I advice everybody to train in usage - and do it north up. For flying and keeping your intuition for orientation in space there is none better.
Number Two: a lot of brain laziness is produced by moving maps, but there definitely is one benefit for electronic charts - for operating an aircraft. I emphasize that way because there is a big difference between manual piloting an aircraft and let do electronics operating an aircraft. Using all the electronic gadgets, being able to push buttons, configure irritating track up moving maps is not airmenship in my eyes, it is simple computer systems operations.

I do prefer to fly an aircraft, but I am an old fart and enjoy even planes that old they even don't have any electricity.

[ShyTorque]

Airmanship is knowledge of the 'big picture' and where one fits into it. The more mental capacity one uses up with navigation, the less one has available for all the other important stuff such as lookout, listening out, aircraft management and communication.

I was brought up using paper charts and a stopwatch and was trained by the UK military system to fly at extremely low levels (day and night) to land at given grid references within fifteen seconds of a given time. I have always used the 'track up' method of holding a chart because that is the best way to orientate oneself when it comes to left and right. Turn up the wrong valley at low level in poor weather and you're a dead man.

These days I'm very happy to follow a magenta coloured line because it frees more brain cells and allows me more time to maintain a good lookout. I seem to spot most light aircraft long before their pilots have seen me, at least if said pilots do know and intend to comply with the rules of the air with regard to giving way to aircraft on the right, or the head on rule. I can only assume that some of those pilots who should have carried out the necessary avoiding action for my aircraft when they didn't have right of way are those with eyes pointing inside the cockpit for too long, looking at a paper chart, worrying about their next turning point.

[Chris Royle]

Pedant mode set to ON.
When I was learning to fly, I was taught that maps are what pirates use, whereas charts are specifically for use by navigators
I'll get my coat.........

[Flyingmac]

Used in conjunction with an Ipad, a chart can be very useful. As a shade to prevent stewed Apple.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I could never understand the opposition to using a quarter mil instead of the 'standard' half mil.
I thought it stopped showing airspace at not very much above treetop height?

[Flyingmac]

These are available from Luddite.co.uk


http://justus.ownit.nu/flyg/flygkartor/USA_routes/AAR_7.htm

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Paper maps are wonderful. They never break down. And consider the rich information-per-square-cm in an OS map compared to crap Googlemaps.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I gave someone a lift yesterday. He tried to give me directions by fiddling around with some electronic gadget! - by the time I'd arrived at the destination he still hadn't found it. It would have taken seconds with a paper map; I had one in the car, I nearly passed it to him, but todays kids have probably never seen one and wouldn't know what to do with it.

[fireflybob]

Maps are obsolete

No but finding pilots who really understand the fundamentals of navigation is becoming increasingly rare as modern devices deskill them.

At a slight tangent on the topic but this is an interesting watch with respect to modern technology

The Glass Cage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt8ooCms4sE)

[Sam Rutherford]

1. Charts don't break down, but they are also out of date the moment they are printed.
2. Who needs to know how to read a chart if you have sufficient redundancy to never have to rely on one? We're no longer taught how to use a sextant, and they dropped Morse as a requirement as I was half way through my commercials. I suggest that drawing lines on maps could, actually should, be dropped - in favour of instruction in how to use the various (and amazing) electronic solutions that now exist.

The reality is that there are thousands of pilots presently being trained, and studying, a system of navigation that they will never, ever actually use the moment they get their certificate/licence.

[Crash one]

I was once amused to see a ten year old child reading a book (paper version). Placed her fingers on the page and attempted to zoom in on something by spreading her fingers.
Then I did the same thing myself at the age of 77.
We are doomed!!

[Heston]

1. Charts don't break down, but they are also out of date the moment they are printed.
2. Who needs to know how to read a chart if you have sufficient redundancy to never have to rely on one? We're no longer taught how to use a sextant, and they dropped Morse as a requirement as I was half way through my commercials. I suggest that drawing lines on maps could, actually should, be dropped - in favour of instruction in how to use the various (and amazing) electronic solutions that now exist.

The reality is that there are thousands of pilots presently being trained, and studying, a system of navigation that they will never, ever actually use the moment they get their certificate/licence.
Actually Sam, given your background and experience, you are really surprising me with your ridiculously simplistic take on this! Either you are winding us up, or I will have to downgrade my opinion of you.
Basic compass stopwatch and ruler navigation is really important to learn, even if you will never use it in its most basic form. Why? Because you must absolutely understand those fundamentals. Whatever form of nav you use.
Most of us don't fly with sufficient redundancy in our electronic nav systems to never need to fall back on simply knowing where we are and looking on a chart to see where to go next.
The pro GPS lobby seem to assume that it's black and white, either use full GPS with magenta line. Or use only compass and stop watch.
The reality isn't like that. I teach folk to plan on paper, and be confident they could find their way on paper if the electronic stuff went tits up, but to have a GPS running to confirm where they are (NB no magenta line)

[Heston]

I was once amused to see a ten year old child reading a book (paper version). Placed her fingers on the page and attempted to zoom in on something by spreading her fingers.
Then I did the same thing myself at the age of 77.
We are doomed!!

Haha! Maybe we are at that :)

[Above The Clouds]

1. Charts don't break down, but they are also out of date the moment they are printed.
2. Who needs to know how to read a chart if you have sufficient redundancy to never have to rely on one? We're no longer taught how to use a sextant, and they dropped Morse as a requirement as I was half way through my commercials. I suggest that drawing lines on maps could, actually should, be dropped - in favour of instruction in how to use the various (and amazing) electronic solutions that now exist.

The reality is that there are thousands of pilots presently being trained, and studying, a system of navigation that they will never, ever actually use the moment they get their certificate/licence.

Oh yeah really, get a grip, next time you fly something that isn't equipped with all the gadgets then how are you going to get from A-B.

Or just wait for Trump to have a bad day and switch all the brain cells to your fantastic gadgets off when your in the middle of nowhere :D

I just checked and isn't April 1st just yet.

[Crash one]

No but finding pilots who really understand the fundamentals of navigation is becoming increasingly rare as modern devices deskill them.

At a slight tangent on the topic but this is an interesting watch with respect to modern technology

The Glass Cage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt8ooCms4sE)

That was a very interesting 55 mins. And hits the nail firmly on the head.
I have said somewhere that using the magenta line system a pilot could fly from one end of the country to the other with a blank white screen except for airspace and a magenta line. With no clue where they are at any given time. Declutter to the nth degree!

[ShyTorque]

Oh yeah really, get a grip, next time you fly something that isn't equipped with all the gadgets then how are you going to get from A-B.

Or just wait for Trump to have a bad day and switch all the brain cells to your fantastic gadgets off when your in the middle of nowhere :D

I just checked and isn't April 1st just yet.

If Trump turns off his brain cells, I''d carry on using Putin's because my portable receiver can see both. Failing that, I'd carry on using the other radio navaids I always have appropriately dialled up as backup whilst fishing out the relevant 1/2 mill chart from behind my seat.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Journey whether in the air or on the ground, I'll always get a mental map beforehand. Saves a lot of stress, and gives you good SA.

[A Squared]

1. Charts don't break down, but they are also out of date the moment they are printed.

And by that rationale, a digital chart is out of date the moment the download is complete. So everyone is flying with out of date charts. :hmm:

[Sam Rutherford]

Actually, this is exactly where I'm going...

We'll shortly be jumping in cars where not only are we not navigating, we're not even driving. Planes will follow.

Before that we'll be flying with AR (we already have little boxes and SV).

As I already mentioned, you of course need redundancy (my plane has no less than four GPS, three of which have some sort of independent battery backup). I think my analysis that I have zero risk of total NAV failure is correct (assuming that the GPS network being switched off in my area is zero).

Of course, anything is possible - but on reasonable probability I'm more likely to win the lottery than find myself without an electronic NAV solution.

And in answer to someone else's post - clearly if the plane doesn't have the hardware then you will have to bring your own solution with sufficient redundancy.

If you're using 3G or higher connectivity, your electronic chart is constantly updating even in flight, even with notams coming and going. A paper one is immediately out of date, and is a year out of date before the next one appears.

For preflight, we have t'internet - and for the final stages the absolutely brilliant 'flight simulator' on google earth for local spatial awareness. I've used this a couple of times for first visit to (particularly mountain) strips - it's weird seeing the same river/factory etc. for the second time when I've never actually been there before.

More simply, 99% of pilots (including big commercial aircraft who've had paperless cockpits for years) no longer use charts (and don't even have access to them) - so should we not be training on the correct use of these rather than 'last year's solution'?

Discuss! :-)

[Sam Rutherford]

And in response to here (and on FB curiously) with regard to this subject and the VintageAirRally.

When you're already flying a labour-intensive aeroplane, with an open-cockpit, average radio quality and high ambient noise - using an electronic NAV solution is clearly the way to go for a bunch of reasons. There's a video on youtube showing a chart wrapped around the tail! :-)

As far as another thread on here is concerned, however, we've never claimed to be doing it without modern aids. Erm, because we are doing it with modern aids!

[cats_five]

No but finding pilots who really understand the fundamentals of navigation is becoming increasingly rare as modern devices deskill them.

At a slight tangent on the topic but this is an interesting watch with respect to modern technology

The Glass Cage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt8ooCms4sE)

When I did my navex for gliding the instructor I did it with placed huge emphasis on the small picture and none on the big. Was the high ground where it should be? Was the big river where it should be? IMHO the big picture is just as important as the small, a view developed over years of hill walking & some marine navigation. For me the big picture is what lets me re-orient myself if necessary.

[FullWings]

I like charts and carry them when flying gliders and light aircraft. They are there as backup, though and I navigate using electronic ones and the view out of the window.

Benefits like airspace warnings, traffic display, frequency selection, NOTAM plots, live weather and terrain profiles make properly designed moving maps such an advance on the traditional flattened dead tree device.

I’m of the opinion that yes, instruction should be given in the use of “classic” charts but after competency has been achieved using modern devices. The sky is too busy these days to learn by your mistakes, especially with lookout and airspace...

[Chris Martyr]

Oh Sam,,,,you're such a naughty boy..This is the one subject that's guaranteed to get the fur flying.
I must say , I'm pleasantly surprised to see such a robust defence of trad.nav methods and whilst I tend to lean towards that myself , I do feel that both sides have their place in aviation.
I've said before that there's nothing that says that the chart supporters are the good guys and "the tablets" are not. You can be a menace in the sky using either method.


As one who has a great interest in classic/vintage types , I do , by extension have an equal interest in traditional navigation methods . I fly purely for fun and get massive enjoyment from it.
If , on the other hand my leanings were towards doing flying like wot the "steely-eyed killers" do , then it would probably make a lot more sense to use more contemporary means of navigation.
There is no right and no wrong method here , as long as people don't drop their standards.
It's been quite an interesting thread so far. I'm sure had it been posted elsewhere , we would be up to about 12 pages now with all the usual backbiting and acidic PM's.


Perhaps it's a bit more 'old school' on here.........[fine by me]

[Above The Clouds]

If Trump turns off his brain cells, I''d carry on using Putin's because my portable receiver can see both. Failing that, I'd carry on using the other radio navaids I always have appropriately dialled up as backup whilst fishing out the relevant 1/2 mill chart from behind my seat.

Well Putin's system is turned off or degraded more than Trump's without prior warning, I know as I am based and work in Putin's airspace.

Definitely agree with you regarding the use of other ground base navaids as a backup, even the trusted NDB's are still widely used for approaches East of the European border.

Anyway each to their own method, personally having been trained old school in the methods of navigation I like to have charts available for VFR navigation they always got me to the target in the past :ok:

[Sam Rutherford]

Hi Chris,

Actually, if I'm being entirely candid, probably looking to see if how I fly (not used a chart in years) is in line with others (old and new school).

I'm also used to flying (even post Army) in a high workload environment (difficult locations, weather and simultaneously managing a large group of aircraft for example).

The idea of doing all of that plus being possibly being uncertain about my position makes me cringe.

[Ambient Sheep]

1. Charts don't break down, but they are also out of date the moment they are printed.

In the recent tragic Irish SAR helicopter crash, was it not the case that the electronic map they were following didn't have the island they hit marked upon it (despite the omission having been previously reported) whereas the official paper chart did?

Being electronic is no guarantee of accuracy or indeed currency.

I also agree about Google v. OS. Google can be handy at times but then I pick up even an old Landranger and once more marvel at its sheer detail. In some ways things have moved backwards.

[Above The Clouds]

Hi Chris,

Actually, if I'm being entirely candid, probably looking to see if how I fly (not used a chart in years) is in line with others (old and new school).

I'm also used to flying (even post Army) in a high workload environment (difficult locations, weather and simultaneously managing a large group of aircraft for example).

The idea of doing all of that plus being possibly being uncertain about my position makes me cringe.

Sam, I think it comes with age :)

[Chris Martyr]

I'm also used to flying (even post Army) in a high workload environment (difficult locations, weather and simultaneously managing a large group of aircraft for example).


Given your current professional involvement and also , your background Sam, I fully agree that contemporary nav. methods are of utmost importance and should you be forced into requiring a chart , then you would be having a very bad day indeed. Hence my earlier comment regarding the "steely eyed killer" requirements .
As a 'fun-runner' myself though , who only flies for purely recreational purposes , I believe it would remove a lot of the fun and the skill to only use tablet devices. Navigation for me is a hobby in itself . Although it must be said that loafing around over the beautiful Sussex countryside at 73kts hardly leaves one open to surface to air missile attacks.


Although , if I had flown military machinery in war zones or was in bandit territory in Africa , which is something that I'm sure Sam can identify with, then 'state of the art' nav. equipment would be a no-brainer.


So for me , there is great relevance in both methods. And in answer to Sam's original question about charts being obsolete ?


Sorry mate,,,,,,,,,:ok:,,,,a resounding NO:O

[ShyTorque]

I have encountered quite a few examples where paper charts were very much in error.

One of them resulted in a helicopter flying into an island not depicted on the charts being used, with the usual tragic result.

I've also had to fly and operate (as in find my way and land) in terrain where the only available charts were completely blank and annotated "not surveyed". No other navaids were available at the time and GPS was still at the military secret stage, the required satellites were not then even in orbit.

Not too many years ago the CAA miraculously re-situated the 1117' AMSL mast at Princes Risborough to a position to the north west of Kenley. Unfortunately it was the dominant obstacle to the north west of the LHR CTR and thankfully no-one flew into it because it was definitely still in its original place. It was some months before a chart amendment was issued.

The present CAA 1/2 mil charts were issued with errors showing active glider sites as disused airfields.....

[fireflybob]

The charts should be used in conjunction with the latest amendments - here is an example for the half million southern 1:500,000

Amendments for Southern England & Wales - Edition: 43, 02/03/2017 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_nats_vfr&Itemid=358.html)

[chevvron]

I have encountered quite a few examples where paper charts were very much in error.

One of them resulted in a helicopter flying into an island not depicted on the charts being used, with the usual tragic result.

I've also had to fly and operate (as in find my way and land) in terrain where the only available charts were completely blank and annotated "not surveyed". No other navaids were available at the time and GPS was still at the military secret stage, the required satellites were not then even in orbit.

Not too many years ago the CAA miraculously re-situated the 1117' AMSL mast at Princes Risborough to a position to the north west of Kenley. Unfortunately it was the dominant obstacle to the north west of the LHR CTR and thankfully no-one flew into it because it was definitely still in its original place. It was some months before a chart amendment was issued.

The present CAA 1/2 mil charts were issued with errors showing active glider sites as disused airfields.....

Not only CAA charts. For many years, the RAF printed and issued a quarter mil for SE England depicting a couple of gliding/parascending sites to the east of Greenwich meridian incorrectly, the chart maker having placed them west of Greenwich by the same number of degrees as they should have been to the east.

[Discorde]

If you're using SkyDemon or similar you can print out your route before you fly as a back up in case the electronics go mammaries vertical during flight.

[anchorhold]

Sam I think the thread you raised is an interesting one, and the glass gage likewise the children of magenta make interesting viewing. But I suppose how much technolgy you want in your life diring recreational activities. Anyone will know how annoying it is going on holiday family, and loading up you car with telephone, digital camers and IPad chargers and a variety of chargers. I rather not have a television or mobile signal, so the children can detox from technology.

I worry that new qualified pilots post qualification actually develop their navigation skills, likewise if the newly qualified MPL pilots could navigate a light aircraft at night or in IMC at night, let alone recognise geographical features across Europe!

Moving on to single crew or pilotless aircraft, I do not think in the next hundred year a single person will be able to operate an airliner from the ground or in the air, simply down to the action of one person in the Germanwings accident.

Likewise automated self driving trucks and cars, what is the point, if I go somewhere in my car, I rather just drive, and anyone who has used a satnav in their car, the ridiculous route the take you on. Ultimately, from a legal point someone needs to be liable for the car, which I guess means it can not drive you back from the pub if you are over the limit.

To conclude, I think you should not use GPS, VOR's or for navigation until you have mastered dead reckoning, but when you do start using GPS or EFIs you still need to fly by sole reference to charts in the event of electrical failure or system sytems failure. i really wonder if plotting use VOR, NDB and VDF, but no DME or TACAN is a lost art.

Before you all think I am a ludite, I really like Garmin 340 as a Nav/Com setup, but you need to know the basics of DR and plotting. I should add that I usually carry a Garmin 12 XL which in an emergency is great for QDMs to saved runway thresholds so almost as good as localiser/DME, NDB, VDF approaches or SRA's.

[Capt Kremmen]

I back the OPs arguments all the way ! GPS is my primary means of aviation navigation. I argued strongly for its teaching to be included into the student syllabus.


I am tho' a traditionalist. At the age of sixteen I became a British Merchant Navy cadet and was taught the arts of coastal and celestial navigation. There is a special pleasure obtained from using ruler, chart, dividers and protractor, though their use is next to impossible when flying.


My recreation is now gained from sailing small boats. Navigation information is readily gained from a combination of GPS and Navtex. Do I use it? Seldom. I prefer traditional means and in a sailing vessel have the time to do so. Time and speed are the major differences between boat and aircraft. In an aircraft you need an instant confirmation of where you are. Not so instant in a boat.

[Fishtailed]

Sam, I'm sure you started the fire just to see how long it will burn, but here goes-

throwing a bit of fuel on the fire, I actually think that using a chart rather than an electronic alternative is poor airmanship.

I must be a realy bad pilot, becaus along with mothminor-
My own little aeroplane has no electrics, good job I have a 1/4 mill map.
And I fly with no radio;)

[Sam Rutherford]

I am genuinely interested to hear from those choosing charts over ipads (or whatever) - and am surprised by the number of supporters for charts (neither negatively nor positively). I thought there would be a consensus for electronic solutions which is not the case.

I did use the word alternative. If you don't have an alternative then you gotta go with whatever you got...

[ShyTorque]

The charts should be used in conjunction with the latest amendments - here is an example for the half million southern 1:500,000

Amendments for Southern England & Wales - Edition: 43, 02/03/2017 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_nats_vfr&Itemid=358.html)

Yes, obviously any chart needs to be kept updated. But how many pilots can honestly say they do so by regularly checking the published list and permanently appending their chart?

[eagleflyer]

I´ve been flying for over a quarter century and was trained to use paper charts and the magnetic compass. These were the days when the TMA´s around were not even half as large as they are today, and usually in pretty remote areas. We even flew off the chart into our neighboring country...

Nowadays I am a strong supporter of using digital charts and a navigation app like Sky Demon or similar. Frankly speaking, I believe anybody flying in unfamiliar areas with complex airspace and deliberately not using any (cheap) sort of moving map is acting foolishly. I´ve had more than one guy call me after landing after busting our TMA.

I still practice using paper charts sometimes for the fun of it, but I do so in rather remote areas. Also, I only carry the Airmillion chart as (fourth) backup, not the 1:500.000 anymore.

[fireflybob]

But how many pilots can honestly say they do so by regularly checking the published list and permanently appending their chart?

Probably because they weren't taught to do so in basic training.

[Mike Flynn]

Looking back through my log books some of my most interesting flights were using 1 mil maps with nothing on them. Flying across the Australian outback from MT Isa to Alice,Ulura to Port Augusta and Adelaide,Ceduna,Kalgoorlie to Perth.

This in 1989 with no navaids just a map and compass. GPS has taken a lot of the navigation skill out of flying in my opinion. Long distances on dead reckoning.

In many respects it mirrors the average home. Switch off the electricty and the phone,internet,heating cooking etc is gone.

A chart is a good solid old fashioned method of finding your way from A to B that will never let you down.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I am genuinely interested to hear from those choosing charts over ipads (or whatever) - and am surprised by the number of supporters for charts (neither negatively nor positively).
No great interest in iTat, but I do rather like to use a panel mounted certified G1000 in conjunction with the paper charts.

[jack11111]

I think sectional maps of the Rocky Mountain Continental Divide are beautiful artwork.
They are also excellent back-up systems.

[ShyTorque]

Probably because they weren't taught to do so in basic training.
We can only blame those responsible for basic training....

[airwave45]

All the issues with airspace infringements we've had as a club over the last few years have been luddite duffers flying with maps as primary nav.
We as a club, are probably going to decline to tow people who don't have electronics as primary nav in the near future.
A map is useful to have, to keep the sun off, poke bugs off the wing through the DV panel, additional insulation above FL150, absolutely useless in this day and age for primary nav.

Bluster all you like about stopwatches, dead reconing and 1/4mil maps, life has moved on, if that is your primary nav, you are exercising poor airmanship and are a danger to all around you.

[FullWings]

There are also duty-of-care issues. If you send someone off with only a 1/2m on their first cross-country and they bust airspace and/or get into other navigational difficulties when modern electronic aids were available, the word “negligent” comes to mind.

The cost of having an accurate moving map with you is so low now, it must be one of the cheapest devices you can get for an aeroplane. There’s nothing stopping you navigating by the stars and a trusty chart but if you mess up, don’t expect any sympathy from the Authority...

[Johnm]

I’m over 70, I don’t have an up to date paper chart for anywhere. I have skydemon on iPad with all the plates and maps for most of Europe and a Garmin 650 in the panel. I fly IFR and VFR all over the place. It is impossible to fly a light aircraft IFR without GPS. If anyone switches off the GPS I’ll ask ATC for vectors to where I want to be.

[Capt Kremmen]

Johnm


Spot on !

[fireflybob]

Pilots should be trained and practised to use all the "tools in the box".

On a PPL skills test if GPS is fitted to the aircraft the candidate has to demonstrate that he/she can use the basic functions of same. Equally during the navigation element of the test they have to demonstrate that they can navigate to a point just using map and compass etc.

For me it's not an "either or" argument which tends to polarise discussion as this thread clearly shows. I teach students that good pilots use strategies to keep the workload as low as possible aka "Keep It Simple Stupid". On certain occasions it might be much simpler to visually follow a line feature, on others when close to complex unfamiliar airspace it might be much more appropriate to use devices such as Skydemon etc or indeed to use a combination of both.

However as I have alluded to before much of this comes back to the quality of training which the pilot has received and also how they keep themselves refreshed with changes. All too often I find the quality of nav training is poor or even non existent. This is not the fault of the instructors who are trying to do their best with the tools that they have but all too often these days they were not trained correctly! Of course there are some exceptions but airspace infringements still occur when pilots are using GPS!

[tmmorris]

I’m over 70, I don’t have an up to date paper chart for anywhere. I have skydemon on iPad with all the plates and maps for most of Europe and a Garmin 650 in the panel. I fly IFR and VFR all over the place. It is impossible to fly a light aircraft IFR without GPS. If anyone switches off the GPS I’ll ask ATC for vectors to where I want to be.

Not yet quite impossible in the UK, although becoming hard now they are starting to turn off the VORs. Cranfield is a big loss around where I fly. Quite a lot of my IFR time is technically VOR and NDB tracking with a VFR only GPS 'for cross reference' although we now also have a 650.

[Johnm]

Not yet quite impossible in the UK, although becoming hard now they are starting to turn off the VORs. Cranfield is a big loss around where I fly. Quite a lot of my IFR time is technically VOR and NDB tracking with a VFR only GPS 'for cross reference' although we now also have a 650.

No chance of that approach working in the London TMA!

[memories of px]

so with skydemon and all the european plates etc., how much does that lot set you back?,

[ChickenHouse]

I vote for there is no either or, it is both. One - With so many political buttheads with no idea whatsoever on the subjects which matter, doing our airspace management on a knowledge of micrometer thought GoogleEarthie-like misbelief and no own piloting experience, they make flying without GPS more and more dangerous. So, No, in many airspace cage constructions flying without GPS moving map may almost be impossible, but not because of physics, but incompetence in definition. Two - Electronic brain extensions may fail and it is good airmenship to have a backup = the paper chart. But, due to cultural change, sustaining on your own is a fading art. I see young pilots totally incapable of orientation in 3D space and for them, loosing GPS is an emergency with call for help, not assistance as it may have been in the ol' days.

[tmmorris]

I agree spatial awareness seems to be a dying art. Even my ATPL friends think I'm mad doing an NDB approach with only a RBI for company. I rather like the challenge of creating a map in my head and orienting myself to it.

Definitely both are needed in the south of England. Route on the GPS to avoid CAS; but drawn onto the paper chart, too, and keep a PLOG updated so you know where you are.

[A and C]

You are lucky in that you fly an aircraft with probably the most accurate ADF that I have ever done a loop swing on. Most of the GA fleet has never even heard of ADF loop swings hence most of them have consigned ADF to the history books & listening to the cricket scores on the BBC.

[Big Pistons Forever]

A lot of people seem to think that the chart plus. PLOG is “traditional” navigation, but it is not. For the first 25 years of flying aeronautical charts did not exist and pilots had to make their own. I am sure there pilots back then that turned up their noses at pilots who bought an aeronautical chart rather then go back to first principals and mark up a topo map to create their own aeronautical chart rather then take the easy way out and buy a pre made aeronautical chart.

Others though eagerly adapted the new charts because they made navigation easier and safer.

I would suggest the new GPS driven moving maps represent the same sea change in navigation technology. The Luddites will cling to the old ways but most will recognize the advantages of new methods and adopt them

Finally I think it is important that the traditional methods of navigation were designed to deal with the fundamental limitation of the time. There was usually no way to continually pin point your location in real time. Therefore the traditional methods helped you to predict were you were going to be and how to correct back onto track when you were able to fix your position.

GPS provides instant and extremely accurate real time position information which addresses the problem that traditional nav methods was designed to solve thus rendering those procedures obsolete

The sad part is GPS does not obviate the need to teach navigation skills it just requires that we teach those skills relevant to the technology, something that is totally absent in today’s flight training.

[Capt Kremmen]

Well put !

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,
Above Heston says they're 'charts, not maps'. This is interesting. When I first began to learn to fly in the late 1950s, my ex RAF instructor taught me that maps were used to describe land and charts were used to describe water. In effect, every topographical feature above sea level, (i.e. mountains, coastlines, forests) would be shown on a map and everything below water level, (i.e. sandbanks, reefs, channels) would be shown on a chart. When I came to do ATPL ground school and was asked to call both 'charts' I asked my college instructor (also ex RAF) what was going on? He replied that the term charts had been decided by JAA as the correct term to use irrespective of whether the features described were above or below sea level. In short, the use of the word 'chart' for what are properly maps is EU speak. For that reason I no longer use the word chart for my maps.
Best regards,
BP

[Heathrow Harry]

A map is a (selective) representation of things you can see - roads, hills, lakes etc

A chart is primarily used for navigation and has elements of a map but also has frequencies, airways which you can't see without specialist equipment that enhances your ability to navigate

[TheOddOne]

The sad part is GPS does not obviate the need to teach navigation skills it just requires that we teach those skills relevant to the technology, something that is totally absent in today’s flight training.

Yes, agreed. Of course, as instructors we can fall back on the 'I teach what the syllabus requires me to teach' or 'I teach to get the student through the skills test', neither of which puts us in a particularly good light. One defence is that there is a multiplicity of devices either fitted to the aircraft or hand-held, all of which work in slightly different ways. Which one do I pick for my students and how to I then standardize training on that device? At least a 1/2 mil chart/map/sectional is a standard reference document for teaching some form of navigation skills.

I read in a recent 'Flying' magazine that a senior figure in Embry-Riddle, one of the largest producers of airline pilots in the US, has said that having an all-glass-cockpit fleet of trainers has meant that the fundamentals of navigation simply aren't getting across to their students. They are apparently looking at a programme to deliver this training in a different way. Maybe they're going to go back to sectionals/maps/charts, rulers, protractors and stop-watches?

TOO

[A Squared]

Hi Guys,
In short, the use of the word 'chart' for what are properly maps is EU speak. For that reason I no longer use the word chart for my maps.
Best regards,
BP


Not true. Here's a link to an Pre-WWII US Aeronautical Chart (https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701pm.gct00089/?sp=9) Note that it is titled "Sectional Aeronautical Chart" Note also that it is over a thousand miles from the nearest ocean. Note further that the publishing date is 1940 which is over half century before the existence of the EU and 30 years before the existence of the JAA. Point being, that the use of the term "Chart" for aeronautical navigation documents was established long before either. If your reasons for refusing to use "chart" is because it's an invention of the JAA or EU, then you have no basis in fact.

[ShyTorque]

I was taught that a map used for navigation is known as as chart.

[Big Pistons Forever]

One defence is that there is a multiplicity of devices either fitted to the aircraft or hand-held, all of which work in slightly different ways. Which one do I pick for my students and how to I then standardize training on that device?


I think it is too easy to get lost in the knob-ology. There are universal concepts that apply to all GPS navigators

A small random sample

- The difference between bearing, track and direct to track

- What is the lowest safe altitude to fly that magenta line

- If you need a sudden diversion, what do information do you want from the GPS

- What factors should you use when deciding what map scale to use

Finally I make a really big deal about developing TLAR (That Looks About Right) skills. A perfect recent example

A low hour PPL friend ask me to ride along with him on an out an back cross country

The direct track out was 323 deg for 121 miles. Setting up for the return leg the GPS said the track back was 178 deg for 78 miles. I asked him if we were ready to go and he said yes so I asked him if the out bound track passed the TLAR test.

After a moment of thinking he clued in that the reciprocal of 323 was not 178 and the distance was wrong. Zooming out the map scale it became obvious that he had entered the wrong airport designator in the flight plan.

That is exactly the kind of skills that should be taught but are not....

[n5296s]

@BPF: I think you've hit on the scientific explanation of something pretty significant. GPS dissolves TLAR skills, aka common sense.

I took an Uber yesterday back to Santa Rosa airport from the Peanuts museum (summary: don't bother) and we took a complicated route which included a narrow, hump-backed bridge. The driver explained that huge trucks routinely get stuck on it following the magenta-line equivalent to a factory further down the road - which can, of course, be accessed without narrow bridges via another route.

[ShyTorque]

That is exactly the kind of skills that should be taught but are not.... Certainly someone is very much remiss if it's not taught! It's not really a skill; it's called a gross error check and is very basic stuff.

I recall when the RAF first fitted Decca TANS nav kit to our helicopters, some pilots thought all they needed to do was to plug in a diversion grid reference or lat/long and get going on the heading. I pointed out to some who really ought to have known better that rubbish in = rubbish out! A few learned the hard way about fuel planning in that you can't always fly in a straight line between two points, for a number of reasons.

[cats_five]

TLAR skills were not always in evidence some years ago before GPS in gliders became common. When I did my XC endorsement I wasn't required to demonstrate them much to my surprise.