I'm working on my pilot's license and think about this all the time.
My instructor is insistent that I learn all my flying fundamentals in a 1940s-era Aeronca Champion (stick and rudder, no flaps, no electronic instruments) on the theory that it's much better to learn the fundamentals with the least help possible so that when we add complexity with things like an artificial horizon, VSI, and eventually an EFIS and autopilot, I won't have to depend on those tools to fly.
On the one hand, my flying now is certainly less safe than if I was learning with all those modern safety advancements, but on the other hand I'm learning how to fly purely with an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a tach, and my own eyes. It's a little scarier, but if god forbid I ever had an electrical system die on me mid flight I can still fall back on my basics.
Ultimately, safety systems paradoxically make you more likely to make bad choices if you don't understand what they do. Autopilot doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load while you're flying by reducing the amount of fine motor skill you need to engage. A GPS doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load by not having to fiddle with VORs or rely on ground references for navigation as much. But you have to be ready for either of those systems to fail and still finish your flight safely. I feel much more confident that I could do that now than friends of mine who learned on fancy brand new aircraft with glass cockpits.
I learned to fly long before GPS was a twinkle in anybody's eye. As such I was taught map-reading. And even in places like the 'featureless' Australian outback, it's surprising how detailed modern maps are, and how easy it is to follow them.
But it's so much easier to plug in the co-ordinates or name of your destination into the good old GPS, that I fear 99.9% of pilots do their navigation that way.
But what happens if your GPS malfunctions somewhere along the way? Can you get to your destination by map and wristwatch?
Exactly. It's wild how accurate just plain ol' pilotage and wayfinding can be if you learn how to do it. Of course, the learning part is the problem :)
My instructor is insistent that I learn all my flying fundamentals in a 1940s-era Aeronca Champion (stick and rudder, no flaps, no electronic instruments) on the theory that it's much better to learn the fundamentals with the least help possible so that when we add complexity with things like an artificial horizon, VSI, and eventually an EFIS and autopilot, I won't have to depend on those tools to fly.
On the one hand, my flying now is certainly less safe than if I was learning with all those modern safety advancements, but on the other hand I'm learning how to fly purely with an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a tach, and my own eyes. It's a little scarier, but if god forbid I ever had an electrical system die on me mid flight I can still fall back on my basics.
Ultimately, safety systems paradoxically make you more likely to make bad choices if you don't understand what they do. Autopilot doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load while you're flying by reducing the amount of fine motor skill you need to engage. A GPS doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load by not having to fiddle with VORs or rely on ground references for navigation as much. But you have to be ready for either of those systems to fail and still finish your flight safely. I feel much more confident that I could do that now than friends of mine who learned on fancy brand new aircraft with glass cockpits.