3 ms·

For me personally paper is indispensable as a design tool for sketching out complex systems. I "think" more clearly on paper than I do with any digital tool I'v

by _moof 3y ago

For me personally paper is indispensable as a design tool for sketching out complex systems. I "think" more clearly on paper than I do with any digital tool I've used. In an aviation context I mostly use an iPad these days (learned to fly long before iPads were a thing) but I carry some backup paper charts. I've had chargers fail mid-trip and the electronic flight bag apps are real power hogs. And that's not to mention the ever-present threat of GPS failure, which is very real.

histriosum 3y ago
I'm always fascinated with the folks who still carry paper sectionals.. at any given time in the cockpit Ive got three digital sources of charts that would have to fail, not counting whatever onboard gps I'm flying behind (primary tablet, backup tablet, phone).. I just can't find the point in carrying paper anymore, at least for my risk matrix.. Re: GPS failure, that's orthogonal to the paper argument, since paper doesn't provide GPS either.. I personally am looking forward to the day when paper charts stop being printed! Huge waste of resources that could be better allocated..
- _moof 3y ago
  "Paper doesn't provide GPS" - spoken like a child of the magenta line! ;) Paper provides the VOR frequencies and visual navigation info, and approach procedures if you're really in a bind. It's also cheaper than a second tablet.
  - histriosum 3y ago
    I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading my comment. It was in reply to your statement that GPS failure was a "real concern". I simply noted that GPS failure is orthogonal to the paper discussion. I'm quite happy to use pilotage to navigate, but lugging four sectionals around is a waste of my time and a waste of the FAAs resources to print. My state won the "let's see how annoying we can make these sectional divisions" contest. Just my local flying area is split onto three charts.
- dogman144 3y ago
  You’ll know the value of it when your electronics bork out in a no-fail situation. Or it’s a stress situation and the quick reference chart on paper can be eyeballed while the iPad requires a couple clicks. It happens eventually.
  - histriosum 3y ago
    Three independent electronic devices (two tablets and a phone) running different operating systems would need to fail. And for this to then become an emergency, I would need to be in IMC, also have my onboard installed GPS fail, along with all installed radio equipment. Short of an EMP event or wildly bad decision making on my part, the risk of this is vanishingly small.
    - dogman144 3y ago
      That is usually the response! From another angle, there’s a lot of hubris in refusing to carry analog backups that are a meaninglessly small addition to a packing list vs their risk benefits… which is the only ultimate job for a pilot. It takes one oversight to not charge a phone, or it gets cold in the cockpit and battery drops, suddenly you’re down to two systems, risk jumps, odds one fails… Military pilots still fly with paper charts and darts for a reason.
      - histriosum 3y ago
        Military pilots are trained to fly in areas where electronic warfare is commonplace. That's not a risk that needs to be in my risk matrix as a GA pilot. I personally think it takes a decent chunk of hubris to believe that the likely out-of-date chart that you haven't picked up and actually used in years is going to help you and not impact your airplane control while you find the correct chart and then fold it properly. If we're talking VFR sectionals, I'd need to carry four charts to cover my state -- three, just to cover the area in which I typically fly. Good ole Michigan -- we lost the sectional lottery. I treat my electronics as required equipment, just like you would apparently treat your sectionals as required equipment. I check their battery level before every flight. If they aren't charged, I don't fly. If I don't have a way to charge them in flight, I don't fly (particularly if IMC is in any way a possibility). If one of them fails during a flight, I seriously consider whether it's safe to continue the flight as planned. I see paper charts providing a tiny amount of risk mitigation, which is easily outmatched by treating the electronics as an important checklist item and making sure to carry enough redundancy for the mission. You know who also doesn't carry paper charts anymore? Part 121 airlines. They take risk mitigation pretty seriously.
cal85 3y ago
> I "think" more clearly on paper than I do with any digital tool I've used. I have no specialist knowledge but my theory is this is at least partly down to the fact that it utilises our highly evolved fine motor control system. Compared to prodding chimpishly at a glass screen, using paper and pens/tools requires a more intricate system of movement and tactile feedback, which implies a more elaborate dance of of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain and nervous system – and somehow our capacity to "think" is boosted by this extra activity.

by _moof 3y ago

histriosum 3y ago

I'm always fascinated with the folks who still carry paper sectionals.. at any given time in the cockpit Ive got three digital sources of charts that would have to fail, not counting whatever onboard gps I'm flying behind (primary tablet, backup tablet, phone).. I just can't find the point in carrying paper anymore, at least for my risk matrix.. Re: GPS failure, that's orthogonal to the paper argument, since paper doesn't provide GPS either.. I personally am looking forward to the day when paper charts stop being printed! Huge waste of resources that could be better allocated..

_moof 3y ago
"Paper doesn't provide GPS" - spoken like a child of the magenta line! ;) Paper provides the VOR frequencies and visual navigation info, and approach procedures if you're really in a bind. It's also cheaper than a second tablet.
- histriosum 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you're intentionally misreading my comment. It was in reply to your statement that GPS failure was a "real concern". I simply noted that GPS failure is orthogonal to the paper discussion. I'm quite happy to use pilotage to navigate, but lugging four sectionals around is a waste of my time and a waste of the FAAs resources to print. My state won the "let's see how annoying we can make these sectional divisions" contest. Just my local flying area is split onto three charts.
dogman144 3y ago
You’ll know the value of it when your electronics bork out in a no-fail situation. Or it’s a stress situation and the quick reference chart on paper can be eyeballed while the iPad requires a couple clicks. It happens eventually.
- histriosum 3y ago
  Three independent electronic devices (two tablets and a phone) running different operating systems would need to fail. And for this to then become an emergency, I would need to be in IMC, also have my onboard installed GPS fail, along with all installed radio equipment. Short of an EMP event or wildly bad decision making on my part, the risk of this is vanishingly small.
  - dogman144 3y ago
    That is usually the response! From another angle, there’s a lot of hubris in refusing to carry analog backups that are a meaninglessly small addition to a packing list vs their risk benefits… which is the only ultimate job for a pilot. It takes one oversight to not charge a phone, or it gets cold in the cockpit and battery drops, suddenly you’re down to two systems, risk jumps, odds one fails… Military pilots still fly with paper charts and darts for a reason.
    - histriosum 3y ago
      Military pilots are trained to fly in areas where electronic warfare is commonplace. That's not a risk that needs to be in my risk matrix as a GA pilot. I personally think it takes a decent chunk of hubris to believe that the likely out-of-date chart that you haven't picked up and actually used in years is going to help you and not impact your airplane control while you find the correct chart and then fold it properly. If we're talking VFR sectionals, I'd need to carry four charts to cover my state -- three, just to cover the area in which I typically fly. Good ole Michigan -- we lost the sectional lottery. I treat my electronics as required equipment, just like you would apparently treat your sectionals as required equipment. I check their battery level before every flight. If they aren't charged, I don't fly. If I don't have a way to charge them in flight, I don't fly (particularly if IMC is in any way a possibility). If one of them fails during a flight, I seriously consider whether it's safe to continue the flight as planned. I see paper charts providing a tiny amount of risk mitigation, which is easily outmatched by treating the electronics as an important checklist item and making sure to carry enough redundancy for the mission. You know who also doesn't carry paper charts anymore? Part 121 airlines. They take risk mitigation pretty seriously.

cal85 3y ago

> I "think" more clearly on paper than I do with any digital tool I've used. I have no specialist knowledge but my theory is this is at least partly down to the fact that it utilises our highly evolved fine motor control system. Compared to prodding chimpishly at a glass screen, using paper and pens/tools requires a more intricate system of movement and tactile feedback, which implies a more elaborate dance of of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain and nervous system – and somehow our capacity to "think" is boosted by this extra activity.