![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Nasir" wrote in message news ![]() Having received my PPL recently and been on several cross countries, I was wondering how extensive of a flight plan do people prepare before the trip? Nasir, I am a relatively low-time pilot and just made a small cross country just yesterday. My experience has been that I still do some flight planning manually, but I let my computer do the number crunching. My flight planning consisted of looking on my sectional for a destination, drawing a line, making note of landmarks for checkpoints, measuring the distance and True Heading and estimating time en route with my E-6B. This took all of 10 minutes (It would have been shorter, but the Sunday morning news was on and I would plan during the commercial breaks). Then, I went to my computer, started up the AOPA's free flight planner, typed in my departure and arrival points and voila, my flight was planned. All the wind correction, magnetic variation, fuel calcs and times are computed almost instantly (for both forth and hence), saving me many minutes of planning. Here's the important step: I checked over the Navigation log to make sure that it somewhat matched my crude manual numbers. This way, if I made a mistake somewhere, it would be a red flag telling me to look over my plan again. I then went to AOPA's AFD and printed out my destination's info and diagram. I let the computer's flight planner do the wind correction angle, fuel calculations, fuel at each leg, time en route etc. Manually, doing these calculations is the most time consuming part of flight planning. I usually fly totally by pilotage since I don't have a GPS. I rarely even use the VOR, since most of my flights are over the country to small airports. Some day, I'll get a GPS though, because I think it would be a great insurance policy against that sinking feeling that you've just passed your destination airport and you've got to turn around (or do you?). -Trent PP-ASEL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Trent Moorehead" wrote:
Here's the important step: I checked over the Navigation log to make sure that it somewhat matched my crude manual numbers. Excellent idea. The problem with computers is not that they make errors, but that they don't notice or care if you feed them bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. Type in the name of a GPS waypoint wrong and the computer is perfectly happy to send you to Nebraska instead of New Jersey. I once sat in the cockpit of an airline flight during the pre-flight preparations for a flight to Bermuda. Between the plane's computers and the airline's dispatch department, the flight was planned about as carefully and accurately as possible. But the pilot still pulled out a chart and a plotter (looked just like the one you got in your student pilot kit, except that it had the airline's name printed on it and looked like it had accumulated a lifetime's worth of dings and scratches), drew some lines, and went over it leg by leg verifying that the headings and distances the computer spat out looked reasonable. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:26:00 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
"Trent Moorehead" wrote: Here's the important step: I checked over the Navigation log to make sure that it somewhat matched my crude manual numbers. Excellent idea. The problem with computers is not that they make errors, but that they don't notice or care if you feed them bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. Type in the name of a GPS waypoint wrong and the computer is perfectly happy to send you to Nebraska instead of New Jersey. I once sat in the cockpit of an airline flight during the pre-flight preparations for a flight to Bermuda. Between the plane's computers and the airline's dispatch department, the flight was planned about as carefully and accurately as possible. But the pilot still pulled out a chart and a plotter (looked just like the one you got in your student pilot kit, except that it had the airline's name printed on it and looked like it had accumulated a lifetime's worth of dings and scratches), drew some lines, and went over it leg by leg verifying that the headings and distances the computer spat out looked reasonable. This is one of the biggest problems with computers and machines. A couple of studies about 10 years (or so) back showed that adults are unlikely to question the output from a computer. Most adults in the 50 and over group fall into two camps. Those that can't, or won't use computers, and those who believe them to be unfailing (Windows aside). Of course there is a small fraction who believe them to be a creation of the Devil... Young people are more likely to challenge the output of the computer unless they are used to variable results as when using GPS, or devices like computer games. In between the reaction to faulty output is divided and no real percentages exist as to how many behave in what way. The problem is there is a very good chance of people, such as pilots, accepting faulty output with little or no questioning. Hence it pays to not only have completely independent navigation systems, but the ability to fall back on pilotage where possible. Far too many accept the current systems as their only need due to their reliability and both let their pilotage skills atrophy and do not use independent backup systems. One thing to remember, that like pilotage the back up system does not need to be as precise as the GPS, only "good enough for who its for". IE Adequate. OTOH, those who don't trust computers are likely to ignore inputs that they distrust. (The National Geographic episode "Flying on Empty" is a prime example) This was the one where the pilot received the award for the longest glider flight or something similar. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?) www.rogerhalstead.com Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Roy Smith wrote:
"Trent Moorehead" wrote: Here's the important step: I checked over the Navigation log to make sure that it somewhat matched my crude manual numbers. Excellent idea. The problem with computers is not that they make errors, but that they don't notice or care if you feed them bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. Type in the name of a GPS waypoint wrong and the computer is perfectly happy to send you to Nebraska instead of New Jersey. That's what I like about the mechanical E6B (and I suspect why they are still popular, when slide rules have disappeared from everwhere else) is that they make you think about the orders of magnitudes in your calculations, and "hrm, that's not right" seems to scream louded on a mechanical E6B. Add to that, also for time and distance calculations, the mechanical one is unquestionably faster. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |