[GolfHotel]

......
With modern portable tech used for navigation, there will be some pilots that are more heads in than they used to be, and there will be some pilots that are the opposite. ....

Why do people keep saying that portable tech means more eyes in?

I've never known a moving map to be slower than a map and pencil.

Sure you can have problems like an app shutting down or tablet over heating. But you can loose position on a map or drop your pencils.

From my experience the moving map type apps considerably DECREASE eyes in time.

[davef77]

12 seconds per minute? Break your scan cycle down to 15 second segments, and you're giving yourself just 3 seconds to refocus on the instrument panel, adapt to the different light levels, saccade across a selection of instruments, and assimilate the information presented. 80% is very demanding amount of time!

I accept that you may be correct, I was assessing this subjectively, I have never tried to measure it, have you?

12 seconds EVERY minute still sounds like a lot to me.

So what do we need to check every minute? Not much, I would suggest.

If I am flying S&L I am going to check where I am in relation to my magenta line every 2 or three minutes. That check will take less than a second. Occasionally, if there is bad weather ahead or I have some other decision to make it may take longer.

I will check Ts & Ps maybe once every five or ten minutes, again a glance, again less than a second.

I am going to check altitude more frequently, lets say once per minute and compass course, similar, I think that I can do both of those in a second.

Landing, on short final, is different, I am keeping a closer watch on the speed. Aerobatics is different I am keeping a closer watch on heights. But in both cases frequent sub-second glances are the order of the day.

I accept that I may be over-estimating the time that I am head up, but I am still confident that I exceed 80% of my time. Maybe I am not spending enough time monitoring instruments

[johnm]

Genuine question here.

Other than close to CAS does anyone really accurately follow the magenta line?

Autopilot owners apart.

Rob P

See my post earlier in the thread. The answer is no for VFR and IFR in Class G and Yes for IFR or VFR in controlled airspace.

I use an autopilot extensively, but outside controlled airspace I use Heading Mode rather than Nav mode and still fly a wobbly course relative to the magenta line.

[Charles Hunt]

In the distant past I can remember many times enroute being asked for ETA at next turn point.

I don't think I've ever been asked for an ETA at a turn point. Have they stopped needing these?

Often heard from mid channel south.

Most common response is:

"......er, standby.........."

[Dave W]

...
Other than close to CAS does anyone really accurately follow the magenta line?
...

See my post earlier in the thread. The answer is ... Yes for IFR or VFR in controlled airspace.

Inside or outside CAS, I do the same thing VFR: I set the heading I want, pick a suitable feature in the distance relative to the nose, and aim at that. The accuracy relative to any pre-planned line will be the same.

That's what I am mostly looking at; something outside. Looking in to check heading indicator or GPS is an infrequent check that takes a tiny amount of time. That's what I was taught and presumably most others were too.

The difference in CAS is altitude accuracy, and ensuring that does mean more frequent glances inside - but glances are all they need to be.

[Wide-Body]

I think these figures include drones. If anyone is really interested I can confirm.

[johnm]

...
Other than close to CAS does anyone really accurately follow the magenta line?
...

See my post earlier in the thread. The answer is ... Yes for IFR or VFR in controlled airspace.

Inside or outside CAS, I do the same thing VFR: I set the heading I want, pick a suitable feature in the distance relative to the nose, and aim at that. The accuracy relative to any pre-planned line will be the same.

That's what I am mostly looking at; something outside. Looking in to check heading indicator or GPS is an infrequent check that takes a tiny amount of time. That's what I was taught and presumably most others were too.

Which raises an interesting point alluded to earlier. I fly on instruments all the time whether IFR or VFR. How I use those instruments depends on where I am and what the weather's doing, but I will be following a plan and procedures to some degree or other. If VFR I look out of the window, but only for the scenery and the potential for traffic spotting. I'll also take a traffic service whenever possible and navigation is always kit based.

[matthew_w100]

I accept that I may be over-estimating the time that I am head up, but I am still confident that I exceed 80% of my time. Maybe I am not spending enough time monitoring instruments

Oh - I'm *looking out the window* 80% of the time, easy. But 99% of that is admiring the view, wondering why I seem to keep turning to the right and selecting the next cloud to shoot down. Every so often I suddenly, and guiltily, remember to do a proper "Aces High" sky check for the sneaky Hun. About as often as I remember to do a FREDA. And as Aces High, that superb training video, reminds us, unless you're scanning constantly you're not really scanning at all.

[Irv Lee]

I have not been asked for an eta for my next turning point as I was taught to give it when I first mention it.
Also most pilots I chat to don't "get it" about VRPs nearby. If they are five miles east of one, it seems most would never think of saying that in personal preference to saying they are over a small town that the pilot knows, but a controller or "passing by" pilot won't find on a half mil chart.

[Straight Level]

There is a plethora of of eye tracking software that could 'easily' put accurate numbers to eyes up/down time and possibly even measure the effectiveness of the visual scan when eyes out.
It would be very interesting to put hard numbers against our subjective opinions. Some free software available so might not even cost the earth to run an experiment.
SL

[matthew_w100]

I have not been asked for an eta for my next turning point as I was taught to give it when I first mention it.
Also most pilots I chat to don't "get it" about VRPs nearby. If they are five miles east of one, it seems most would never think of saying that in personal preference to saying they are over a small town that the pilot knows, but a controller or "passing by" pilot won't find on a half mil chart.

So was I, but on the very rare occasions when pilots list turning points on the radio other pilots accuse them of giving their life histories. So it's only student pilots who do so.

Southend ATC often asked me to "report passing Shoeburyness" which is not a RP, nor marked on the map. And I didn't know where it was until, after the third time, I looked it up on Google Maps.

[ClearOfCloud]

I'm not dismissing the rapid increase in the use of GPS and tablets with ongoing updates (good thing Tim et. al, good thing) but I can't see any comment in the thread on the one of the interesting trends on the graph.

Granted, this is by no means a rigorous analysis, but if you look at slow downward trend in airporxs in the early part of the graph, you'll see a gradual increase in GA hours. If you look at where the significant increasing trend in airporxs starts, it corresponds fairly directly to a significant fall-off in GA hours.

The GPS discussion is valid and there are some excellent points made but their correlation to the OPs graph is speculative.

I think the the drop-off in hours flown may be more significant. Perhaps reduced currency is leading to an over-reliance on technology; perhaps that's not the whole story but I do not believe that GPS/tech is the root cause of the increase.

[Dave W]

I think the the drop-off in hours flown may be more significant.

Yep, quite possibly. Hence me frequently getting uppity when people here suggest we are all mandated to spend "just £800" on a new bit of kit - with all that would mean for yet further reduced currency in the budget end of GA. That is, most of us here.

[GrahamB]

I accept that I may be over-estimating the time that I am head up, but I am still confident that I exceed 80% of my time. Maybe I am not spending enough time monitoring instruments

Oh - I'm *looking out the window* 80% of the time, easy. But 99% of that is admiring the view, wondering why I seem to keep turning to the right and selecting the next cloud to shoot down. Every so often I suddenly, and guiltily, remember to do a proper "Aces High" sky check for the sneaky Hun. About as often as I remember to do a FREDA. And as Aces High, that superb training video, reminds us, unless you're scanning constantly you're not really scanning at all.

At last, someone being honest.

[Pete L]

I think these figures include drones. If anyone is really interested I can confirm.

I have a reply from UKAB with some draft stats which suggests not but I will check.

Paraphrasing they think the trend may be coming back down and have no strong explanation.