Having completed my PPL in G1000 equipped aircraft and now going to the other extreme and flying J3 I can absolutely agree with the statements about basic pilotage and dead reckoning being extremely important and lifesaving skills. The way I look at it, as a very low time pilot, these skills are essential for learning, developing and maintaining discipline that results in strong situational awareness. To filter out or avoid using the valuable data that a GPS provides because it is seen to potentially erode skills doesn't sound right to me. At the same time, I do feel that it is not a foundation to build upon. It would be like handing children calculators so that they can learn arithmetic.

 

The thing I'm curious about is why when one is relying on instruments in IMC why a VOR would be considered better than an IFR certified GPS? Each is a tool that can be applied (in)correctly. The GPS is more versatile with the tremendous amount of data it throws at you, but it is not infallible. I can see one scenario of over reliance on technology that could result in the outcome of CFIT with a pair of high time pilots at night in a G1000 equipped aircraft. Enabling terrain on the navigation map page at night can easily blind the view outside. It is very easy to turn it off while on the ground then not remember to turn it back on or switch over to the terrain map page after departing.

 

In the end isn't the most important thing that one always takes the time to thoughtfully prepare and maintain a high level of situational awareness throughout a flight? In applying and maintaining good SA, wouldn't it make sense to use all available sources of information to crosscheck? I'd hate to find out that my GPS led me astray because I programmed it incorrectly or that I accidentally switched the radials on the receivers when tuning for an intersection.

 

I must thank the CFIs I have worked with for making it a point to show me how to use a G1000 but also making sure that I never made it a crutch. I enjoy using pencil and paper to navigate to new locations anytime that I can. I find it very rewarding to look down at the HSI at random times every now and then and find myself right on course or less than half a deviation on the GPS. Flying this way is a more intimate experience and I get to know the area I am operating in much better. It's assuring to know at all times exactly what type of activity is around me, where airports for diversions are located and simply not allowing myself to be surprised by unexpected sights outside the window. Shouldn't one always be using whatever tools they are equipped with to see where they will be several minutes into the future vs staring at where they are right now?

✄snip✄

 

Nice thoughts there. To answer some specific questions, as far as I'm concerned:

 

I'd hate to think we're making this into a GPS vs. ground based navaid discussion. That's surely not what I'm going for, as I think VORs are pretty abstract for the new pilot (especially the more advanced lesson of reverse sensing). I will still say that the majority of pilots have become "children of the magenta line".

 

I think the root of the entire discussion goes to the point you skillfully articulated in your third paragraph.

I don't think anyone has said that VOR's are better than GPS. What we are saying is that when things go south you need a backup plan that is outside of GPS's and even VOR's. Planes still fly when they lose the majority of equipment.