Nice! My step-grandfather used to fly on them a whole bunch between the NY Area and Scandinavia since he managed the US operation of SAS. It's interesting to hear his stories about flying back then. From what I remember, they pioneered some cool stuff  with the DC-7.

Yeah Scandinavian was the first airline to do arctic crossings as far as I recall

 

 

Think of it this way:
Your 777 is losing its computed mind and things are starting to revert back to the basics. Do you want someone who's flown a DC-6 for a while, or someone who's flown a highly automated beast for most of his career, by your side? Why?

 

I think that this has been proven in the past, with crashes in KSFO (most recent) where flight crews are relying too much on automation. Personally I would want someone who can handle the **** when it hits the fan. Someone who knows the internal workings of the aircraft, or someone who learned which button to push....... hhmmmmm that's a no-brainer there Kyle.  :smile:

You'd want this kind of pilot by your side - definitely for the DC-6 anyway

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hmx1yqB3XQ

I think that this has been proven in the past, with crashes in KSFO (most recent) where flight crews are relying too much on automation. Personally I would want someone who can handle the **** when it hits the fan. Someone who knows the internal workings of the aircraft, or someone who learned which button to push....... hhmmmmm that's a no-brainer there Kyle.

 

Don't forget that crews like you mention have been trained to fly their aircraft that way, and are bound by strict SOP's. The problem therefore lies higher up the food chain to the managers who expect their crews to be "managers" and not pilots.

In defence of the children of the magenta line - consider the accident rate of modern aircraft vs the accident rate of the early jet age, especially when you factor in the % increase in the number of air miles flown. It's many times safer to fly a modern jet on a fully coupled GNSS approach with glass screens, EGPWS, windshear prediction, autothrottle etc. than it ever was to pole a 707 round a circle to land approach to minima with nothing but an NDB and a big set of cajones. Lots of people died trying those.

 

The 707 guys *may* have been better pilots, but passengers were many times more at risk. Modem technology on the ground and in the air has negated many of the required skills of yesteryear. Not to say that good old stick and rudder skills aren't important, however!

Not to say that good old stick and rudder skills aren't important, however!

I think that's the point Kyle and other were making, wasn't it? Flying a vintage will teach you that the hard way, forcing you to learn good airmanship habits and skills, else you crash (or less dramatic, simply won't enjoy flying this bird). Having the autopilot do your job once above minimum engagement altitude is not an available option, so...

For sake of honesty, I have however to admit that I didn't find access to acquiring those skills just by sim-flying; it all changed when I started flying in RL (no airliners though, just a tiny SF25)...

I think that's the point Kyle and other were making, wasn't it? Flying a vintage will teach you that the hard way, forcing you to learn good airmanship habits and skills, else you crash (or less dramatic, simply won't enjoy flying this bird). Having the autopilot do your job once above minimum engagement altitude is not an available option, so...

For sake of honesty, I have however to admit that I didn't find access to acquiring those skills just by sim-flying; it all changed when I started flying in RL (no airliners though, just a tiny SF25)...

Oh yes I agreed with the point, but just wanted to say that even though the modern skill set has changed (degraded, maybe?), you're at less risk now than you were back in the day. I for one am very excited about this bird and the challenging flying it will bring.

In defence of the children of the magenta line - consider the accident rate of modern aircraft vs the accident rate of the early jet age, especially when you factor in the % increase in the number of air miles flown. It's many times safer to fly a modern jet on a fully coupled GNSS approach with glass screens, EGPWS, windshear prediction, autothrottle etc. than it ever was to pole a 707 round a circle to land approach to minima with nothing but an NDB and a big set of cajones. Lots of people died trying those.

 

The 707 guys *may* have been better pilots, but passengers were many times more at risk. Modem technology on the ground and in the air has negated many of the required skills of yesteryear. Not to say that good old stick and rudder skills aren't important, however!

Unfortunately the crew of AF447 didn't take your advice. When their computer said "I don't know what to do over to you". They didn't know how to respond. Maintaining thrust and attitude was all they needed to do. A standard procedure for loss of airspeed indication.

This type of accident is now becoming more common. Enac now requires examiners to unexpectedly fail entire systems leaving the crew under review literally to fend for themselves.

In an effort to help avoid this sliding down a hill, I think it's important to note a few things:

1. My earlier commentary on the points of others making the argument that flying the 6 will force you to become a better pilot argument was to defend the stick and ADM skills thereof. Back then, you really had to be the brains of the operation. The AP was there to help you a bit (if it was even present, and that's not mentioning functioning), but a lot of the flying was still done by hand.
    
2. There has been a massive tradeoff over the years, as I alluded to in another one of my posts: we have, as Ben noted, become a lot safer due to that automation and advance in technology. There's a lot of truth in that, but it has also not given us many opportunities to have to handle non-standard procedures, which has an effect on hand flying and ADM skills outside of the various sim sessions. Still, you can't argue with the safety record of today.

I think this stance is partially reflected in the DC-6: it has a rudimentary autopilot (at least by today's standard), and it also has the GPS. I know the GPS bothers a number of people, and I know I've heard a few people express a little disappointment at seeing a GTN 750 in the DC-3, but at the end of the day the plane is being flown right now, and there is a lot of safety in a GPS, particularly moving map. Back when you didn't have all of the airspace of today, radar to monitor it, and a DHS position at the local facility to monitor busts of it, being a few miles out of position wasn't a huge deal. Let's be real: when the DC-6 was initially flying, there were significant portions of the world marked on aviation maps as "uncharted" (you hear this a bunch in Gann's writings, and a few times in Mock's).

 

Thinking back to when I did my commercial long cross country flight, I distinctly remember a point where I was sitting there thinking "I have a feeling the FAA wrote this as a requirement back when a 300nm flight would have been tougher to navigate," as I stared at the straight course line between origin and destination. All the same, the ability to see exactly where I am at all times, particularly regarding airspace, is a huge boost to safety (both personal and certificate). With the GTN 750, the addition of weather and traffic further adds to that safety.

 

I think that it's extremely important that, as a community, people remain open minded about issues like this. If there is a problem, it needs to be addressed head on. Skills are lacking when it is necessary. This is a proven fact. Over the years we've made improvements on how to handle overcoming the troubles of automation stunting pilot skill, but there is still work to do. One of the ways to improve those skills is to go out and experience some of the things that you haven't. Go get a tailwheel endorsement, get some time in a classic of some sort, or, on the simple side, ignore the GPS and have a look out the window (when sufficiently far enough away from crazy airspace).

Well put Kyle,

One of the arguments surrounding GPS is that here in Europe it is by law a "secondary" navigation device. Pilots must be able to navigate primarily by using paper charts which are mandatory on all flights both IFR and VFR. Not forgetting the mark I eyeball as well lol.

Are you simulating navigation by sextant as well? Ernest Shackleton comes to mind when he and his rescue team navigated 800nm from Elephant Island to South Georgia with no more than a handful of fixes because of the rough seas. Or how about a PMDG sun compass lol. Unfortunately for the English the Vikings were rather a dab hand at using them!

ETA? hehehehehhee.

 

Now with IXEG, ATS and PMDG finally the X-Plane will have a huge push in third parties quality.

 

 

One of the arguments surrounding GPS is that here in Europe it is by law a "secondary" navigation device

 

From February 2017 in Australia, GNSS becomes the primary means of IFR navigation, and all IFR aircraft in all classes of airspace must be fitted with approved GNSS. In fact, in 2 days time the bulk of our NDB's and VOR's are being decommissioned, leaving only a skeleton "backup" network. In my state of Victoria, there will be 6 NDB's and 4 VOR's in the entire state (although it is not that big).

... then whoever owns the GPS satellites hits the off switch... 

From February 2017 in Australia, GNSS becomes the primary means of IFR navigation, and all IFR aircraft in all classes of airspace must be fitted with approved GNSS. In fact, in 2 days time the bulk of our NDB's and VOR's are being decommissioned, leaving only a skeleton "backup" network. In my state of Victoria, there will be 6 NDB's and 4 VOR's in the entire state (although it is not that big).

Great so when the aliens attack and disable all the satellites? Tip, take a sun compass in your pocket just in case lol.

As someone who had a hearty distrust of the shift to GPS some time ago, I find the modern distrust of it a little rich. <crotchety old man voice>I started in a 172 with two VOR receivers and a busted ADF, learning proper VFR flight with a paper map and looking out the [darned] window </crotchety old man voice>. First, one must realize that different areas of the world uses different GPS systems: US - GPS; Russia - GLONASS; Europe - GALILEO; among others. Even if one system got shut off, there are others, though there would be some cost associated with compatibility for receivers tied to a single constellation. As an example, modern panel-mount Garmin units work on GNSS, which uses GPS (AFSC), and GLONASS (but Galileo should enter around 2020, along with BeiDou). Depends on your installation, obviously. All the same, a coordinated attack on multiple constellations at different orbital altitudes to knock out GPS entirely would be extremely difficult (and expensive), and I'd consider it very highly unlikely.

 

Even if all of the various constellations went down, the bulk of the air traffic could still rely on the skeleton VOR network and inertial systems. The rest could rely on the skeleton VOR network. For those completely incapable of either of those, ATC could provide vectors. ILS isn't dependent on GPS, of course. If the destination airport doesn't have ILS or a VOR approach, then you go to an alternate with ILS. Since just about all high-traffic airports have ILS installations, diversions due to a loss of GPS would still managing exceptions rather than wholesale shifts.

 

Back in the early 2000s, without wide use of ground-based augmentation, with single-constellation dependency, the concept of GPS was definitely somewhat feeble. Now, with wide use of ground-based augmentation and multiple constellations, the concept of GPS is quite a fault-tolerant behemoth. Any sort of malady would be localized and rather rare to the point where pulling back on antiquated ground-based systems isn't too worrisome. Keep in mind that, though modern airliners are still capable of ANAV, they've been on RNAV for quite some time now, and I can't think of any significant event where any system around the world where all RNAV aircraft had to shift back to ANAV.

 

So, I get that it's change and change is scary, but let's think through things a bit before simply spreading anxiety.

(...or if you're being satirical, be pretty clear about it.)