I still have two slide rules operative and very occasionally I do a few calculations on them for fun – amazed by the theories from some bright (British) minds that created these logarythmic scales for complex calculations.
The slide rule was indeed fun and I used it at school when I was 11. However I doubt that nowadays there are many people left who know the underlying principle – which as you say is really clever.
The slide rule has a couple of issues. One is that you still need to know roughly what the answer will be (which is fine if you are an “engineer” 
but it allows gross errors to be made easily) and the other is that it can only multiple or divide; it cannot do addition or subtraction, so for the vast majority of calculations one needs a calculator anyway.
And of course it is likely to be useless in turbulence.
most rules of thumb are only excuses to not understand the math/physics.
Actually a rule of thumb requires that you understand the underlying principle.
Peter wrote:
The slide rule was indeed fun and I used it at school when I was 11. However, I doubt that nowadays there are many people left who know the underlying principle – which as you say is really clever.
Sure there are – anyone who has done A level maths knows that adding logarithms is equivalent to multiplying. They should even understand why it works, and IIRC should know about changing bases and the summation/subtraction identities.
Peter wrote:
it cannot do addition or subtraction
Mine does, it has a separate linear scale. Not very useful though.
I think I have some E6B in my flight bag. I do not recall when I use it the last time, I am not sure if I ever use it. But I guess each new pilot should understand the principles and this is the way how to learn it. Sure, today, when I have G1000/GNS430 or Skydemon I´ll do the calculation different way (if I do them at all) but I still need to do the sanity check.
BTW, speaking of wind drift – I do not calculate any heading corrections for years.I just take the strongest of any wind (departure, en-route, destination) and consider that as headwind. This will get me pretty good picture if I am able to get to me destination….
Actually a rule of thumb requires that you understand the underlying principle.
A friend of mine just passed the IR skilltest. He learned intercepting a VOR by just applying some rules of thumb.
I’m sure he has no clue what he is doing, but it works :) Same for his holding entries. He literally puts his thumb on the ADF and applies some magic to show him the correct entry 
Old tech still worth teaching?? We fly aerodynamic planes with piston engines both quite old technologies….
Let’s not forget the ILS system and how old that is…
Peter wrote:
Actually a rule of thumb requires that you understand the underlying principle.
Ideally yes, and certainly if you are an engineer. But flying is not an engineering skill, and almost every rule of thumb in flying is made so you don’t have to think about the basic and underlying physics. They are just ad hoc multiplication/division/subtraction schemes making it “easier” to do things right.
I’m more and more of the opinion that you should use the best and most easy going technology you can get your hands on. Less work and less to remember is better. Today this means SD and similar (for VFR), glass screens, FADEC etc, then learn how to use it effectively for your type of flying. Forget all about ancient tech like E6B if you never plan to use it anymore anyway, unless you actually want to use this stuff, which some people find fun (I guess for the same reason that some people like manual operation of piston engines, an antiquated skill that is much better done by a computer). But, at the same time you should be able to control the aircraft “tactically” just by the seat of your pants, your ears and eyes, even when all the gadgets have failed. A BRS could also be useful, as a last resort. I’m not against old fashioned stuff, but unless you somehow find it enjoyable or have no other choice, then newer stuff that requires less brain-work and less finger-fiddling is always better IMO.
lenthamen wrote:
A friend of mine just passed the IR skilltest. He learned intercepting a VOR by just applying some rules of thumb.
I’m sure he has no clue what he is doing, but it works :) Same for his holding entries. He literally puts his thumb on the ADF and applies some magic to show him the correct entry
I can’t see the problem. I think it is sometimes a European thing to believe that in order to intercept a VOR you must be able to repair an actual VOR beacon. If it works who cares how he does it?
When I did my “CPL/IR” (before JAR) back in the 90’s they were still teachin grid navigation to “ATPL” students. When would that ever come handy? Hmmmm…
I did frigging Decca and I’ve never even seen one.
There’s a bungalow at Andreas airfield called “Decca House” because that’s where a Decca station was (the outbuilding still has a diesel exhaust coming out of it where the generator used to be).
