Paper? Or Plastic?

I cannot tell you how disturbing the attitude of the sidebar “Paper? Or Plastic?” accompanying September 2012’s article, “Seven IFR Prep Tips,” was to me. I have been flying for over 40 years, most of them professionally. Having earned my instrument rating in 1976, a paper chart was the only choice and it has served me well all of these years. It does not need toxic batteries and it always works. Yes, the new gadgets are shiny and slick and do all sorts of wonderful things. However, aviation is an expensive activity, and those electronic devices are not cheap. Subscription costs have a habit of accumulating and escalating. I have recently changed to the atlas style of paper low-level en route charts. That means no charts spread across the cockpit. You are correct in saying that IFR flying takes planning. This is true of any cross-country flying. Weather is the biggest variable in flight planning and takes up most of the planning stage and all of the actual flying. No, I do not have in-cockpit weather other than what I can see out the window. Under those conditions, all weather avoidance is strategic, with no tactical avoidance available.

Key Takeaways:

• The article features a debate between a pilot advocating for the reliability and cost-effectiveness of paper charts for IFR flight planning and the magazine highlighting the convenience and comprehensive nature of electronic flight planning tools.
• A pilot emphasizes the importance of practicing emergency landing gear extension during annual inspections, a recommendation the magazine extends to airborne practice to simulate real-world conditions and challenges.
• Readers suggest future articles on interpreting engine monitor data, safe egress with a life raft during overwater emergencies, and a broad overview of FAA regulations and manufacturer advisories.

Key takeaways sponsored by Aviator Pro | Start Your Training ->

See a mistake? Contact us.