FAA Pilot’s Handbook Of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 16, Navigation.

Why do some flight instructors still insist that their students use paper sectional charts, plastic plotters and mechanical E6Bs to plan cross country flights the “old school” way? Electronic flight bags or EFBs are widely used and accepted in the aviation industry and by the FAA. Nearly every pilot today owns a smartphone and a tablet each capable of more calculations per second than the Apollo 11 module and the Space Shuttle combined. Teaching antiquated flight planning methods to student pilots and then expecting them to use current technology wisely without incorporating it into the training is like teaching a teenager to drive a vintage, manual transmission pickup truck on a farm in the country, then once he gets his license, handing him the keys to mom’s Tesla and sending him off on a road trip to New York City. This approach doesn’t make any sense, and can cause more problems than it’s intended to solve.

Pilots need to learn how to use modern aviation technology intelligently, but the FAA’s airman knowledge and practical tests are in many ways trapped in a time warp. Cross country flying today does not have to be as difficult or complicated as the FAA makes it seem. What we need is more scenario based training and testing rooted in the practical application of core knowledge and skills. The FAA needs to eliminate outdated trivia on knowledge tests and transition from maneuvers based practical tests to more scenario based practical tests. This would align with the FAA’s existing Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) protocols for Part 121 and 135 operators, and support the incorporation of AQP into general aviation training and testing. For more information on how AQP applies to general aviation operations, click here. 

Every day we drive our cars from point A to point B using onboard GPS or the map feature of our smartphones. With experience we become familiar with certain routes and visual landmarks, and use GPS as a tool when the route is unfamiliar. The GPS can even alert us to traffic delays and suggest alternate routes. Be honest, when was the last time you used a Rand McNally atlas on a road trip? Automobile drivers and airplane pilots have unique operational and safety concerns, but navigation by GPS is now the de facto standard both on the ground and in the air. So why are there still questions about magnetic compass turning errors on the FAA airman knowledge tests, when in modern aircraft there is little use for the magnetic compass except in an emergency situation? 

Flying by reference to the magnetic compass should be relocated to the emergency procedures section of the Private Pilot ACS (FAA-S-ACS-6C, dated November 2023, effective May 31, 2024). What kind of emergency could force a pilot to resort to the magnetic compass for navigation? Maybe some sort of event that takes down GPS satellites and ATC radar simultaneously? If this highly unlikely scenario transpired, we’ve all got more to worry about than magnetic compass turning errors. Pilots flying in VMC should be able to locate the nearest airport visually and pilots flying in IMC should be able to get to VMC and land somewhere safely. If you can’t do this, you need more training. 

The Private Pilot ACS states that during the pilotage and dead reckoning demonstration, the applicant must “use the magnetic direction indicator in navigation, including turns to headings.” It does not explicitly say the applicant must use the magnetic compass, yet they are tested on the behavior of the magnetic compass. FAR 61.93(e), Maneuvers and Procedures for Cross Country Flight in a Single Engine Airplane, requires student pilots pursuing a private pilot certificate to receive and log flight training on the “use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage and dead reckoning with the aid of a magnetic compass.” Therein lies the inherent disconnect between regulation and reality, because FAR 91.205 requires aircraft to have a “magnetic direction indicator” which could be the heading displayed digitally on your big-screen, IFR-certified primary flight display. It does not explicitly require a compass, though a compass might be listed as required equipment by the aircraft manufacturer. For more information on the function of the magnetic compass, click here. 

Obviously, pilots must understand magnetic headings and how to use them to navigate and follow ATC instructions. But as a flight instructor, I’d be more concerned with a pilot who did not understand how the magnetometer feeds heading data to the HSI, or who did not understand how to use the GPS in their airplane than I would be with a pilot who could not recall the “ANDS/UNOS” mnemonic for magnetic compass turning errors. Even when I was flying in a non-GPS airplane many years ago, I always thought the ANDS/UNOS tactic was pointless because all you had to do was know that a standard rate turn is 3 degrees per second, so if you wanted to turn 10 degrees to the right or left, you’d simply count “one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand” while turning at standard rate (or banking about 15-20 degrees) and you’d end up pretty close to the desired heading without worrying about whether to overshoot or undershoot the target heading. 

For the record, magnetic compass errors are not mentioned in the current edition of the FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 16, Navigation. The chapter does, however, go into great detail on how to triangulate your position using two VOR stations and how to use an ADF, which was considered state-of-the-art navigation technology in the 1940s. The magnetic compass is discussed in Chapter 8, Flight Instruments.

The Sporty’s Learn To Fly video course that we recommend for student pilots is a wonderful training resource overall, but because one of its primary roles is to prepare students for the FAA Private Pilot Airman Knowledge Test, it includes content that is designed purely for this purpose. 

Screenshot from Sporty’s Learn To Fly course, discussing the use of EFBs and E6Bs.

Pilots must be able to read aeronautical charts and identify and understand the rules for various classes and types of airspace. The electronic charts in ForeFlight contain exactly the same information as the paper charts, but with lots of additional features that reduce pilot workload, enhance situational awareness and therefore increase flight safety. For example, you can depict active restricted areas and TFRs right on the chart. There are some places in our nation where visual landmarks may not be good enough to help pilots remain clear of restricted airspace, such as in and around the Washington, D.C. Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). I earned my private pilot certificate in the SFRA in 2003 in a Cessna 152 without a GPS and it was stressful to say the least because the consequences of busting that airspace were so severe. I learned to give the SFRA a wide berth when returning from a cross country flight and to contact Potomac Approach well before the boundary. Even here in Jacksonville today, the southern boundary of the Mayport TFR is impossible to identify without a GPS overlay because there are no good visual landmarks located along the boundary. 

Washington, D.C. SFRA

Mayport TFR in Jacksonville, FL

If EFBs are so useful, why the pushback against student pilots using them during training? Some instructors complain that their students stare too much at their iPads while flying, or that they fixate on the panel mounted GPS instead of looking out the window for traffic. While I’ve observed this behavior while flying with students, I am adamant in my assertion that the devices aren’t the problem – the pilot, and to some degree, the instructor, is the problem. A pilot who spends too much time looking at his iPad or his GPS has not been properly educated on why he needs to look out the window. He has not learned that it is for his own self preservation that he needs to be vigilant about scanning for traffic, birds, weather, landmarks, and emergency landing sites. Maybe instructors need to share more NTSB reports of fatal CFIT and midair collision accidents with their students to drive home the point. Maybe instructors need to provide more scenario based training, like simulating an engine failure in flight while the student is searching for something on his iPad. 

The same thing could be said of the kids who I routinely see walking down the sidewalk around here with their heads down, staring at their phones, oblivious to oncoming traffic or child predators. I blame their parents for allowing them to do this and not teaching them the potential consequences of this behavior. When these kids get behind the wheel of a car they will likely text and drive and get into an accident one day. We are all humans capable of making choices, both good and bad. You can choose to stare at your iPad while you’re flying or you can choose not to. The iPad didn’t make you stare at it, you chose to stare at it. Pilots have free will, too. That’s the whole point of being Pilot In Command.

The Private Pilot ACS also states: “To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed, available, or airborne equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or a flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are available or installed and operative during both the ground and flight portions of the practical test. If the applicant has trained using a portable electronic flight bag (EFB) to display charts and data and wishes to use the EFB during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate appropriate knowledge, risk management, and skill appropriate to its use.” The use of an EFB is mentioned in the risk management section of several tasks on the practical test, which is appropriate. But what about the risks associated with fumbling with a paper chart in the cockpit or fixating on a quirky and inaccurate magnetic compass while turning the airplane?

The ACS requires applicants to to be able to demonstrate adequate flight planning knowledge and skill, including the ability to calculate:

  • Time, climb and descent rates, course, distance, heading, true airspeed, and groundspeed 
  • Estimated time of arrival, including conversion to universal coordinated time (UTC) 
  • Fuel requirements, including reserve

The applicant must also be able to: 

  • Determine heading, speed, course, and wind correction angle 
  • Estimate time, speed, distance, true airspeed and density altitude 
  • Update the plan en route based on actual performance.
  • Verify position within three nautical miles of the flight-planned route. 
  • Arrive at the en route checkpoints within five minutes of the initial or revised estimated time of arrival (ETA) and provide a destination estimate. 
  • Maintain the selected altitude, ±200 feet and heading, ±15°.

The ACS doesn’t dictate how the applicant must do these things, and includes an important note that states: “Preparation, presentation, and explanation of a computer-generated flight plan is an acceptable option.” By “computer-generated” we infer that a navigation log created in an electronic flight bag app like ForeFlight satisfies this requirement. So can the cross country flight planning task be accomplished entirely in ForeFlight and still satisfy the ACS without an electronic or slide rule E6B flight computer, a plastic plotter or a paper sectional chart? The short answer is, yes, but the student will need to know a few hacks to satisfy the requirements of the FAA practical test. You can’t bring your mobile device with ForeFlight into the knowledge test center because they don’t want you cheating by looking up the answers on Google, so they make you use a dedicated E6B.

Don’t get me wrong — I think the mechanical E6B is a beautiful example of artful engineering. The E6B was invented by Lt. Philip Dalton, a U.S. Naval Reserve pilot who ironically died in a flight training accident in 1941 at the age of 38. Even though the mechanical E6B can still be used today, remember that it, just like an electronic calculator style E6B or an electronic flight bag product such as ForeFlight, requires the human to enter correct data to obtain a correct result. Each tool is designed to do the same job, and each is subject to the same human errors – the old “garbage in, garbage out” theory of data transfer. I’ve seen plenty of students twist the E6B the wrong way or put their dot on the wrong spot on the wheel and get a wrong answer. The tool is irrelevant; the information is what’s important.

You can calculate lots of things with an E6B, but the main data point that any pilot needs to be mindful of during a cross country flight is time, because time, fuel and survival are inextricably linked. Pilots don’t die in cruise flight because they miscalculate their wind correction angle by a few degrees. Pilots don’t die because they don’t know the difference between calibrated and true airspeed. They die because they fly into bad weather or run their airplanes out of fuel. Your “whiz wheel,” electronic E6B or ForeFlight won’t save you from this fate, but common sense, situational awareness, elementary school math skills and a clock should be sufficient even for a marginally knowledgeable and proficient pilot.

E6B enthusiasts will argue that you cannot calculate wind correction angle and ground speed using winds aloft, magnetic course and true airspeed if you don’t use an E6B. Recall that the ultimate goal is to derive a magnetic heading to fly to stay on course given the forecast winds, and an estimated time en route to ensure we don’t run out of fuel. ForeFlight calculates both of these things for us if we provide our true airspeed and fuel burn data from our POH. But is it possible to “reverse engineer” ForeFlight to figure out what the wind correction angle is, to satisfy the requirements of the ACS? It’s actually pretty simple to do, albeit rather useless in practice. In the Flight Plan – Edit screen, change the departure time to a week in the future, so ForeFlight won’t have winds aloft forecast data available to apply to the calculation. Without a wind correction, we can see what our no-wind magnetic heading is. The difference between the current and future-date headings is our wind correction angle. 

Wonderful. But remember that winds aloft data represents forecast, not current, conditions. We use winds aloft forecasts to get an idea of how long it will take to get to our destination, to help us plan when and where we’ll need to stop for fuel. If we’re flying IFR, we also use the forecast temperature aloft to help predict whether airframe icing will be a concern if we’re going to be flying in the clouds. This is all valuable information. But at the end of the day, once we get airborne, we’re choosing a heading to fly that will keep us on course, whether we’re flying VFR using visual waypoints (pilotage) or we’re flying IFR solely by reference to our flight instruments and a course deviation indicator (CDI). Charles Lindbergh used dead reckoning to cross the Atlantic in 1927, without any visual waypoints or navigation instruments of any kind, other than a compass. His success was by all accounts due partly to skill and intelligence but mostly to luck. Yet here we are, almost 100 years later, with our ADS-B and our iPhones and our expensive glass cockpit flight displays, still obsessed with teaching students how to use a slide rule to calculate a mostly meaningless wind correction angle. 

Before you start sending me hate mail, hear me out. Consider the following example. Let’s plan a simple VFR cross country flight from my home airport, Craig (KCRG), to Savannah, GA (KSAV) in a Cessna 172. The magnetic course is 015 degrees and the straight line distance is 108 nm. We will plan to fly at 3,500 feet MSL. The winds aloft forecast for 3,000 feet MSL indicates winds  from 311 at 5 kts with a temp of ISA + 14. Winds aloft are given in true, but we need to convert to magnetic. Since the magnetic variation along our route is 7 degrees west, we add 7 degrees to 311 and get a winds aloft value of 318 degrees magnetic.

Screenshot

If we’re attempting to track NNE (015 course) with a gentle NW wind (318 / 5), we should expect a shallow wind correction angle to the left, and a slight headwind. ForeFlight estimates our heading in this case would be 011 (WCA -4 degrees) and our headwind component is 2 knots. The ForeFlight navigation log shows an estimated ground speed in cruise of 107 knots, based on a true airspeed of 110, with an ETE of 1:02. This is taking into account climb and descent based on the data we included in our aircraft profile.

Let’s now use an E6B flight computer to check ForeFlight’s work. I don’t have a slide rule or a Sporty’s electronic E6B here at home, so I found a free E6B calculator online. Based on this data it is advertising a ground speed of 107 kts and ETE of 1:00. This is not taking into account the climb or descent. Our airplane burns 10 gph in cruise (.16 gal per minute).

Screenshot

Let’s see how our flight would be affected if ForeFlight somehow used the wrong winds aloft data to make this calculation, either because the software goofed or we entered the wrong information.

  • If we leave the wind direction at 318 but change the wind speed to 20 knots, the online E6B indicates a GS of 98 kts and ETE of 1:06. Six extra minutes in cruise will burn an extra 1 gal of fuel. Conclusion: No significant effect on flight safety. 
  • If we change the wind direction to 015 (a direct headwind) and increase the speed to 20 knots, the online E6B indicates a GS of 90 kts and ETE 1:12. 12 extra minutes in cruise will burn an extra 1.9 gal of fuel. Conclusion: No significant effect on flight safety.
  • If we change the wind direction to 015 (a direct headwind) and increase the speed to 30 knots, the online E6B indicates a GS of 80 kts and ETE 1:21. 21 extra minutes in cruise will burn an extra 3.3 gal of fuel. Even in this worst case scenario, if we departed KCRG with full tanks (40 gallons) we’d only require 13.5 gal for the trip, leaving us with more than 2.5 hours of fuel still in the tanks when we land. Conclusion: No significant effect on flight safety.
  • It’s highly unlikely that the wind would change this dramatically from what’s forecast, and even if it did, you’d likely notice soon into the trip. If we end up with a tailwind, we have nothing to worry about!

Recall that the ACS says we must arrive at our en route checkpoints within 5 minutes, let alone arrive at our destination within 5 minutes! If your checkpoints are 20 nm apart, and you are more than 5 minutes late getting to the first one, you have encountered a hurricane force headwind or you screwed something up, like forgetting to set your cruise power correctly or start your stopwatch at the right time. In either case, you ought to find the nearest suitable airport and sort it out.

I know there are some pilots who, unlike me, are blessed with bladders of steel and boast about flying half the day nonstop in aircraft that are equipped with extended range tanks, landing proudly with the minimum required 30 minutes of fuel in the tanks. If you’re one of those pilots you might be balking at my suggestion that even a strong, unexpected headwind will not cause a thoughtful, careful pilot to run out of fuel and crash. It makes no difference whether you’re flying one hour or five hours, or whether your airplane holds 40 gallons or 400 gallons of fuel, or whether you’re flying VFR or IFR. What matters is that the pilot keeps track of his time aloft and always lands with a generous reserve of fuel in the tanks, well above the FAA minimum requirement. If the FBO is closed or the self-serve pump is out of service when you arrive at your destination, 30 minutes worth of fuel might not be enough to take off and go somewhere else in day VFR conditions, let alone under IFR conditions or at night.  

The Private Pilot ACS says the applicant must calculate a revised ETA and fuel burn en route during the cross country flight demonstration. It does not say how to do this. It does not say anything about using an E6B, but it does specifically say that using an electronic flight bag (aka ForeFlight on an iPad) is OK. So why not use it? 

Interestingly, the Instrument Rating ACS does not require applicants to demonstrate diversion techniques in flight, only discuss them during the ground portion of the practical test. Instrument applicants are not tasked with using an E6B in flight to calculate their ground speed or provide a real time fuel and time to the alternate. In real life flying IFR today, you are going to use GPS to divert to an alternate or get radar vectors from ATC. 

I recently posted on my personal Facebook page, asking my airline pilot friends if they carry an E6B in their flight bag, and if so, have they ever had occasion to use it on a revenue flight, and if so, for what purpose. The resounding answer was, no and no. Does that surprise you? 

On an IFR Low Altitude chart, the magnetic courses for airways are displayed because that is how IFR pilots navigate, either by tracking a published magnetic course using GPS or VOR, or following ATC radar vectors. It is not possible to plot a true course on a Low Altitude chart, as student pilots are taught to do on a VFR sectional. Even on the instrument rating FAA knowledge test, when calculating flight data using an E6B you must first convert winds aloft to magnetic because your course is always given in magnetic. 

ForeFlight states on their website:

Are winds aloft true or magnetic?

In the Airports view and within the NavLog on the Flights view, the wind direction and speed are presented in reference to true north when depicting winds aloft. However, in other parts of the application, such as when reviewing calculated headwind, tailwind, or heading for a specific route, the winds aloft information is determined with respect to magnetic north.

As a pilot, the whole point of knowing where the wind is coming from and how strong it is blowing is so you can control your airplane in flight. When I’m on a cross country flight, I like to know during the planning process if I can generally expect a headwind or a tailwind, and whether I’ll need to correct right or left to stay on course. The details will likely change in flight anyway, so it’s more important that I can recognize in real time how the wind is affecting my flight, and that I’m able to make appropriate decisions and take appropriate actions to deal with the situation. It makes no difference if we’re talking about winds aloft or surface winds. For example, if I’m landing at Craig and the ATIS is reporting winds 180 at 10 with Runway 14 as the active, I know I can probably expect a right crosswind, but I know that the ATIS information is old and I’m going to have to observe and respond to any wind drift on final approach. I’m not sitting there at 200 feet AGL fumbling with an E6B to calculate my wind correction angle or crosswind component. I’m actively flying the airplane and observing how it is responding to the wind. I’m applying the appropriate inputs to keep us on the centerline. I’m doing my job as the pilot in command.

Consider that if you do the following five simple things, it is virtually impossible to run your airplane out of fuel on any cross country flight:

  1. Write down the time you started the engine, the time you departed, and how many hours worth of fuel were onboard when you departed. Use a notebook, a sticky note, or your Apple pen on your iPad to record this information, and keep it handy as you fly.
  2. Use your cruise checklist. Set your power as planned and lean the mixture per the POH recommended procedure.
  3. Keep track of your position en route using your GPS and the sectional chart on your EFB. If you’re flying in VMC (under VFR or IFR) you should always be looking out the window for traffic, weather, and suitable places to land in an emergency. If you’re in IMC, refer to the VFR sectional as you fly. Always know where the nearest airport is relative to your current position. 
  4. Keep track of your ground speed en route. Any aviation GPS will tell you what your ground speed is in real time. Most pilots have at least one GPS in the aircraft or on their person at all times. If you lose GPS signal integrity, or you have an avionics failure, why not just notify ATC and ask them what your ground speed is? They have it right there on their screen! Or, you can calculate your ground speed easily the “old school” way by noting how far you travel in 10 minutes, and then multiplying that number by 6. 10 minutes is one-sixth of an hour. So if for example you traveled 15 nm in 10 minutes, your ground speed was 15 x 6 = 90 kts. If your ground speed is lower than you planned, start asking yourself questions like: Is my power set correctly? Did I remember to lean the mixture? What are my fuel gauges reading now? Start looking for a fuel stop short of your destination, just in case. 
  5. Always have at least an hour’s reserve of fuel in the tanks. If your estimated time enroute is 2 hours, make sure you have at least 3 hours worth of fuel onboard. Better yet, consider making a fuel stop when you’ve burned through half of your fuel, and calculate your fuel burn rate when you top off the tanks. If your actual fuel burn rate is significantly different from what you planned, figure out why before you take off again.

I’m not holding out any hope that the FAA will address these and other issues within my flying lifetime. But flight instructors and students can use our collective pilot in command authority to do better.