Who does flight plans?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I
always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
(two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute.


I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel
flow, which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

I don't understand this comment. Obviously I plan, at least in my head, fuel
flow and distance. But this is not very extensive planning - in fact it is
almost second nature. I'm filing IFR, and I have to give time enroute and
fuel on board as two of the items in the plan.


Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information
earlier.

That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within 10%.
During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of respect
for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done in my
head.


I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III
to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own
independent failure.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume.

Come on, I have dual in-panel navigation and two levels of battery backup
with a Pilot III and a battery operated NavCom. And, as a way last resort, I
have a cell phone. Yes, anything could happen, but I don't see how
pre-flight planning will help me here if everything went south, which, once
again, I just don't believe will happen. There is too much redundancy here.

If I was in VMC, there is really no emergency. Fly until I find an airport
and land. Virtually every midsize town (and most small towns) in the west
has an airport.

If I was in IMC I fail to see how doing extensive pre-flight route planning
would help. I know where I am while I'm flying from the GPS. If and when it
goes out (and the handheld goes out...) I'll know where I am at that point.
Assuming I still have the radios, or the handheld NavCom I'll contact ATC
and get assistance. If I don't have any communications or Nav equipment, I
may be in for a lot of trouble. but remember, I'm IMC at this point. I don't
believe that pre-flight planning of waypoints will be a lot of help at this
point...

But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check
against, and that requires preflight action.

Uh, no. That's what having on-board navigation equipment allows you to do.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your
fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that
function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time
left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason
the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an
arrival somewhere else while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for
the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a
pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is
one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning
while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where
that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Sorry, I disagree. Once again, I spend as much time as is necessary to fully
brief myself and make weather decisions. I make a quick ETE and fuel plan
with a very wide margin for error. I have invested in equipment and backup,
and know how to use them very well. I don't see this as sloppy or dangerous.
In fact, I believe it makes for much safer enroute environment than
extensive plotting on charts. Having said that, I fully respect pilotage,
and do not consider those that use it unsafe - they just fly with different
parameters than I do.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect
the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable
emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact
lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good
idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what
direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the
flight.

So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window for
a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous. Sectionals
give very broad altitude and terrain information. There is no way you will
have time during a true emergency to use them or your preflight planning of
emergency landing spots. You will look down, pick a spot, and follow the
emergency checklist. At least I hope you will. I have had two in-flight
emergencies, one in IMC. Preflight route planning would have had absolutely
no impact on the situations. Having emergency checklists memorized and
concentration on flying the plane was completely the key.

In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone
would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If
you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little
chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the
terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to
know what the ground is like along their route.

Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid open
water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest is
flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are pointy.
Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional to know
this stuff.


You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far
away from any services.

Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight
decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of
having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having
considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during
the flight.

I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
do it all the time.


Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel
left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available.
Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than
that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't
be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.


Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
that is spelled) as well. Do you do that? And, more reasonably, by your
reasoning you should clearly invest in better and safer technology than you
have. Anything else is clearly unsafe.

The reality is there is no reason for you to do either. You fly to the level
of planning and safety that is legal and within your comfort zone. You sound
like a prudent pilot. I'm happy to know you are out there flying safely when
our paths cross. But your insistence on your particular brand of safety is
not convincing me.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before you
take off? I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a
restaurant and asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.


I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
cross-checking?

I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and see
what town it is. I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways,
VORs, NDBs, intersections. All easily done in the air.



IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots
of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there
who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared
to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's
clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during
my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't
pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely
abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety
of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of
silicon.

I guess we are at the agree to disagree point. I don't see myself abdicating
anything. I'm not making any judgments about your level of safety when you
fly - other than knowing you spend more time plotting on charts I have no
idea if you are a safe pilot of not. But none of your arguments you put
forth here convince me that your methodology is safer than mine. In fact, I
would argue that the level of redundancy and the experience I have in
putting the technology to use might make my methodology safer than yours.
But then again, I may be wrong...


Pete

"Michael 182" wrote:

[...]
I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute. [...]

Another way of saying this is that roughly estimating these quantities
in one's head can be accurate to (say) 25%, which is sufficient for
trips that don't have unusual risk characteristics. If the airplane's
endurance may get tight, or ground services iffy, then more formal
planning may be called for. But at least in my case, that is very rare.

You're making a lot of sense on this issue, Michael.


- FChE

[much snippage]

Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
makes me wonder who's flying the plane. I don't know where you fly and
what the terrain and such is, but in the Northeast, where I fly, there
are plenty of landmarks. I can get up to four or five thousand feet on
a clear day and see the entire sectional laid out before me. (ok I
exaggerate, but just a bit Still I find it not only prudent, but
quite useful to have done a detailled flight plan with waypoints and
ETEs, headings, wind correction (and a little section for winds aloft),
TPAs (yes, there are surprises), FBOs (including fuel price and
availability - saved me hundreds of dollars), frequencies, reminders of
critical areas (towers, parachute and glider areas, restricted and
prohibited areas), MSAs and target altitudes, and all that stuff that
you seem to relegate to student pilot busywork. I have over 800 hours
and still find it is valuable.

Perusing the charts before flight, and copying down the key items in an
easy-to-use format makes all the difference, especially flying a long
cross country at a thousand feet AGL using pilotage and dead reckoning.
(in fact, I'd reccomend this excercise to all pilots)

I don't even use the computer for planning, let alone in the cockpit.
(I will admit I use AirNav to find good fuel prices and locations, but I
plan them on the chart on paper)

The planes I fly have GPS, and though I do turn it on, I do not rely on
it for navigation. Sometimes I turn it to some non-informative page to
ensure that the purple line doesn't seduce me into the Dark Side. All
of this is just part of flying.

I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
[much snippage]

Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
makes me wonder who's flying the plane.

Why? If I had a decent autopilot, rather than the Cessna wing-leveler I have
I'd use that extensively as well. I'm flying the plane - I'm just using
technology to assist me.


I don't even use the computer for planning, let alone in the cockpit. (I
will admit I use AirNav to find good fuel prices and locations, but I plan
them on the chart on paper)

The planes I fly have GPS, and though I do turn it on, I do not rely on it
for navigation. Sometimes I turn it to some non-informative page to
ensure that the purple line doesn't seduce me into the Dark Side. All of
this is just part of flying.

I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".

Because, it appears you get enjoyment from the charting and pilotage. Very
cool. I don't. In fact, in my TR-182, my flying is pretty much
transportation or currency flying. I don't fly for the "joy of flying". Now
maybe if I bought a Cub that would change, as would my approach to cross
countries. I am considering a glider license (I looked into paragliding, but
comments on this board and from fellow pilots turned me off) because I would
like to recapture some of that "wonder and awe" I had when I first started
flying. But pilotage and charts don't do it for me.

So, with regard to "I just don't understand the attitude of the computer
will do it for me", my response is I just don't understand the reluctance to
accept that computers are far superior to human skills at a great multitude
of what we try to cogitate. Not using them because it is more fun for you
makes a lot of sense. Not using them in the (I believe) mistaken belief that
it makes you a safer pilot doesn't fly with me. (pun weak, but intended...)

Michael

So, with regard to "I just don't understand the attitude of the computer
will do it for me", my response is I just don't understand the reluctance to
accept that computers are far superior to human skills at a great multitude
of what we try to cogitate.

Maybe it's because I've been around computers and computer programmers.

The more you rely on others (be they people or machines), the more your
own skills will silently erode, and the one time when you need them, you
may find it to be more exciting than you had ... er... planned.

If I had a decent autopilot, rather than the Cessna wing-leveler I have
I'd use that extensively as well. I'm flying the plane - I'm just using
technology to assist me.

I have an autopilot in the club planes I fly. I feel so out of the loop
when I use it that I almost never do. It's just so natural (at least
for me) to have my hand on the yoke that I don't even notice. And that
way, if my skills start to deteriorate, I notice it right away. With an
autopilot doing the flying and the navigating, I wouldn't.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...


[much snippage]

Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
makes me wonder who's flying the plane.

[much snippage]


I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".



I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
at the wrong airport . . .

If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.

How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
"playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
every pilot today.

Greg

AMEN.

I like to think "Whatever floats your boat" when I hear folks talk
about turning off the GPS so as to avoid using it as a crutch.

I'm 100% on my GPS and only track VORs when IMC. I do keep track of
where I am on the map (I tend to use WACs for my 'cleared direct' sojourns)

Purists? After getting my SEL and slogging thru all that VOR work, I
flew sailplanes CC for 15+ years. The first 3-5 years were pure
pilotage. Dead recon doesn't work when you are circling and chasing
lift but you do learn to back up your pilotage with it even in those
conditions. I've been sooo lost, sooo many times, and sooo paid the
price that I became pretty proficient at seat-o-pants chart based, low
level, engine-less pilotage. My character was strengthened as earned
confidence grew.....

Then came GPS. Due to a quirk in sailplane racing rules, VORs and such
were illegal but GPS was legal as soon as it came over the horizon.
Early first generation GPS technology was immediately incorporated into
panel mounted glide computers and those carbon fiber, laminar flow
beauties once again got out ahead of the rest of GA.

What was notable was how few pilots fully utilized the new tech. Most
competitors had it onboard (Honey, did Foxtrot Uniform leave the chart
in the car?) but just never learned to use it fully. Purists I guess
but it seemeed slow to me.

This "turn off the GPS" stuff seems slow to me now too as I sit in my
retrograde Maule wishing I had an autopilot.

Greg Farris wrote:

I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
at the wrong airport . . .

If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.

How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
"playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
every pilot today.

Greg

Maule Driver wrote:
AMEN.

I like to think "Whatever floats your boat" when I hear folks talk about
turning off the GPS so as to avoid using it as a crutch.

I'm 100% on my GPS and only track VORs when IMC. I do keep track of
where I am on the map (I tend to use WACs for my 'cleared direct' sojourns)

The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)

Most of us *tried* to fly direct when using pilotage. :-)

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)


Most of us *tried* to fly direct when using pilotage. :-)

Good point. Now we can really do it!

Matt