"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
No, but it does affect planning. I like to plan for "straight"-line paths
that keep me out of restricted airspace. Makes my life a lot easier.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Either a straight line between your
origin and destination will keep you out of restricted airspace, or it
won't. The origin, destination, and restricted airspace aren't moving.
It's not like there are multiple "straight line" paths. In reality there's
only one.

However, that's all irrelevant. If you are close enough to restricted
airspace that a Lambert "straight line" versus a great-circle makes the
difference between in or out, you need more than just a plotted route to
ensure you remain clear of the restricted airspace.

I don't know when the last time you flew a perfect straight line is. Maybe
it was yesterday. But I've never managed to do so.

It's something that matters to me. Am I going to have to think about
where I'm going around some airspace/mountain/...? Do I have to explain
my plans to Center?

That still doesn't explain why you are worried about the difference between
great-circle and a sectional straight line. You never have to explain your
planning to Center, and you always have to think about where you're going
around some airspace or mountain. How you plot the route is irrelevant. If
you have to go around, you have to go around.

If you fly the route plotted, then the route plotted is the one you fly.
Simple, no?

Simple except that it doesn't match the plot on the GPS I use to double-
check my progress.

In other words, you wouldn't be flying the route plotted. My statement is
still true.

I don't recall you ever stipulating that you needed a plotted route that
matched your GPS's great-circle calculations. I would agree that if what
you want to fly is a great-circle route, then you need to plot a
great-circle route.

Personally, I'd use the GPS to show restricted airspace and to ensure I'm
WELL clear. If I wanted to navigate using the GPS, and I had found that a
straight line plotted on a sectional kept me clear of the restricted
airspace, I'd simply add a waypoint to the GPS-direct route near the
airspace, on the line I plotted on the sectional. Likewise other obstacles.
If you're that close to stuff like that, you need something more reliable
(such as looking out the window) to ensure you avoid what you're trying to
avoid anyway.

I'm a horrible person for wanting to simplify flying...blah, blah, blah...
I'll never earn my "aviator balls"...blah, blah, blah...Yeah, I know.

I have no idea what that's all about. IMHO, you are making things more
complicated, not simplifying things. You are falling into the usual trap of
allowing your technology to provide you with false precision, overanalyzing
the flight to the point of distraction.

Maybe you're the best pilot around, and you can actually stay on centerline
when your GPS has a great-circle route for you to fly. Me, I know for a
fact that I'm doing good to keep headings that keep me within a half mile to
a mile of course, even with GPS or Loran.

Using a VOR, my precision goes down even more. I know better than to cut
things close to obstacles and restricted airspace using only my radio
navigation, simply because I can't fly that precisely by radio navigation.
I need outside references to cut things that close, and if I have those,
then I don't need to worry about the difference between a sectional
straight-line course and a true great-circle route.

More power to you if you always remain within a hundred feet or so of your
intended centerline throughout an entire cross-country. I guess if that's
the case, then you shouldn't feel worried at all about trusting your GPS to
guide you just past an obstacle or restricted airspace, and nothing I've
written is relevant to your operations.

Pete