On Jul 2, 10:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
FlyCherokee writes:
I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
and then changed my mind once in the air.
In addition to considering the max elevations of peaks, ridges,
towers, etc in the area, I generally like about 3000 AGL minimum for
safety in case of engine failure. That doesn't necessarily mean 3000
over the highest thing in the area, but 3000 over the predominant
terrain level (to leave enough gliding time and range)

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav
log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight. *

You should work this into your sim flying. It is one of the
differences between actual flying and simulator experience: In actual
flight training, a flight instructor would emphasize the importance of
a nav log, and would not let you fly cross country without one. You
would feel the need yourself, because being lost (for real) in a small
airplane is a scary and life-threatening situation; sooner or later
the fuel is going to run out and you are going to land, if not on a
runway, then somewhere, but you are surely coming down. It's very
important (and just plain good airmanship) to always know where you
are, and the nav log is one of the basic tools for doing this.

If you think you have little room on your table for writing, then
please go to your local small airport and ask to sit in a 172. Then
imagine getting jerked around in turbulence while trying to unfold and
refold a sectional chart, while computing wind speed on the E6B, and
updating you nav log on a tiny clipboard that's strapped to your right
leg, all while maintaining course and altitude and scanning for
traffic!


Thus far I've made virtually no attempt to do anything by the clock, although
I suppose I should. The inability to determine my actual ground speed
discourages me from trying to calculate anything involving speed vs. time.. In
order to determine my position through dead reckoning, I need to know my
ground speed. But in order to determine my ground speed, I need to know my
position. If I know neither ground speed nor position, it's not immediately
obvious to me how I'm going to solve for either of them.

The clock and compass are your most fundamental nav tools, and
certainly you can estimate your ground speed! I think your missing
some of the most fun parts of navigating!; i.e., a course line on a
chart, a compass, a clock, and a bunch of waypoints to check your
position/speed and progress. You estimate your ground speed by
setting up waypoints along your course, timing your motion between
them, and then computing ground speed. Or, better, get yourself an
E6B flight computer which will calculate this and the actual wind.
Then you use that calculated wind to recompute the predicted times to
your subsequent waypoints.

Use ground features for waypoints, e.g., crossing rivers, lakes,
highways, etc. If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints. If none of those, then I would chart a
different course so that I had something to verify my position. I
think the basic flying handbooks from the FAA show to do these
computations.


A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
this information going to be?

Today's winds-aloft forecasts are more than good enough for
navigation. Also, you will directly calculate the winds at your
altitude when you reach your first waypoint.

By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
mirror what my result in real life would be.
For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
job in this area.