AOPA Pilot Magazine - January 2017 - 16

WAYPOINTS

Alone, in the dark

BY THOMAS B. HAINES
Editor in Chief

Tale of two night ﬂights a quarter century apart

Editor in Chief
TOM HAINES passed
his instrument
checkride on his
birthday in 1989,
but, he assures, the
rating was no gift
from the examiner.

16 | AOPA PILOT January 2017

WERE IT NOT FOR THE MILES counting down on the
primary ﬂight display, I might have thought my little airplane and I were suspended in space, engulfed
in darkness and clouds, the ride smooth, the droning engine white noise in the black night sky. As I
crossed the Westminster VOR in Maryland, Potomac
Approach cleared me for a descent to 2,500 feet
and asked me to report my destination, Frederick,
Maryland, in sight. While the ATIS declared that
Frederick was clear, I was still in instrument conditions at 2,500 feet and 15 miles from the ﬁeld. Potomac
called traffic for me, which I could see depicted on the
iPad on my lap. When I reported in IMC, the controller cleared me to 2,000 feet and asked me to report the
bases, as ATC thought the weather was clear. At 2,300
feet I broke out and gave him the heads up about the
cloud deck to the east of Frederick. I was soon set up
for a visual to Runway 30.
As I cracked the hangar door open, spilling light
across the dark ramp, I reﬂected on the brief ﬂight
from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and how little it resembled another night IMC ﬂight from there to Frederick
27 years earlier-just ﬁve weeks after I had earned my
instrument rating in a brand-new Piper Warrior.
The well-equipped 1988 PA-28 included a Bendix/
King KNS 80 area navigation system and an automatic
direction ﬁnder. With all the recent training, I could
chase the swinging needles as well as anyone. The ﬂight
from Lancaster was my first solo night instrument
ﬂight, ending with an uneventful ILS to Frederick's
Runway 23; Runway 30 didn't even exist in those days.
The months of training paid off. The localizer needle swung to the center as I ﬂew the transition off of the
Westminster VOR. I set power and popped in approach
ﬂaps, sliding down the glideslope. Soon the runway
lights materialized out of the inky murk, just as I anticipated they would, as I followed the procedure printed
on the paper approach plate on my lap-the folded lowaltitude en route chart on the seat next to me.
The Bonanza I own today was already a teenager when the Warrior was produced. Yet today, the
navigation information available to me on a tablet computer alone surpasses what the Warrior could muster
when new. I ﬂew instruments for more than a decade
before experiencing a moving map of any real capability. In perusing my logbook of that era, I see multiple
references to holding patterns in actual conditions,

something I seldom see today. Setting up and ﬂying a
hold using the basic six instruments is a serious exercise in situational awareness.
I have no desire to return to the technology of the
Reagan years, but I am glad I learned to ﬂy in IMC on
conventional instruments, as challenging as it was. I
am fortunate to have multiple moving maps available
to me today, including an iPad. Not everyone does, of
course, and they're still ﬂying safely in instrument conditions. I like to believe that with the failure of the
moving maps, I could still fall back on basic instrument skills and keep on going. I wonder how easily
pilots who only learned on glass cockpits with multiple moving maps and GPS overlay approaches could
revert to navigation by reference to moving needles.
To test my skills on a recent instrument proﬁciency ﬂight, I ﬂew a raw data VOR approach using
the conventional course deviation indicator at the
bottom of my stack. I did my best to ignore the information on the multifunction display and the digital
distance readouts to the next ﬁx that seemed omnipresent across the cockpit.
While it all worked out, it also reminded me about
how difficult it is to set up realistic partial-panel exercises in a well-equipped airplane. With multiple
independent navigation sources and moving maps,
plus electronic backup attitude indicators with their
own batteries, does it matter that you've never had to
follow along with a paper chart, using crossing radials to determine your distance to a ﬁx? Or that you've
never had to make timed compass turns when the
mechanical directional gyro decided to take a vacation.
More likely it's covered up with one of those soap-dish
suction cup mats, a CFII sitting to your right thinking up the next macabre exercise to test your mettle.
Most pilots today learn to ﬂy with access to wonderful situational awareness tools. Like mechanical
instruments, modern displays occasionally fail. And
as we did, pilots revert to some other backup and keep
on going. If they couldn't continue to ﬂy successfully,
we would not see a continuing decrease in the accident rate. Technology shouldn't be a crutch. However,
properly used and with appropriate backups, it can
continue to improve the utility of GA airplanes while
making ﬂying safer and more relaxing.
AOPA
SOCIAL

Follow on twitter @tomhaines29

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - January 2017