Who does flight plans?

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
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.

Then how do you know what your actual groundspeed is? Oh, right...I
forgot...you trust your GPS completely to tell you this. And of course, you
will never be without your GPS.

[...]
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.

Then why did you suggest you don't do that part of the planning? You are
now asserting that you do. I never said the planning should be HARD. I
simply said it should be done.

[...]
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.

That's right, it would be ridiculous to do it that way. I never said I did.
The point is that having properly planned the flight, and properly
navigating along the route of the flight, you know at all times where you're
going to land. If "the fan stops", you simply land where you planned to.

Sectionals give very broad altitude and terrain information.

I guess that depends on your definition of "broad". I find sectionals to be
quite detailed in their depiction of altitude and terrain information
(whatever the difference between the two might be...not sure why you use two
different words to describe basically the same information). Using a
sectional, I can plan a flight through a canyon just a few miles wide, and
be completely assured of terrain avoidance, and of being able to correlate
the chart with the visual recognition of the terrain while enroute.
Sectionals certainly have FAR more detailed terrain elevation data than any
GPS I've seen.

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.

IMHO, if you are picking the landing spot after the emergency commences, you
have failed in your duty as pilot in command. This is whether you've done
any flight planning or not.

[...]
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.

I feel pity for a pilot who thinks those kinds of generalities suffice for
the purpose of understanding the effects of terrain and man-made objects on
the flight.

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.

You can't possibly, not without some other reference that is basically
identical to a sectional.

[...]
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.

No, it doesn't sound like you do. Not really. There's a big difference
between punching a new airport ID into a GPS, and coming up with a *plan*.
Though, admittedly, in your case perhaps there is no difference, since your
plan never seems to go beyond that anyway.

[...]
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.

Well, first of all, I already pointed out that you really need to be closer
than one hour to the nearest fuel. But even so, I find myself an hour from
the nearest fuel on a reasonably regular basis. It's not hard, flying
around the west.

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.

How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
guess as to where you think you might be.

There is NOTHING more reliable than seeing out the window of the airplane
and knowing with 100% certainty how the picture out the window matches the
image on your chart. Nothing.

[...]
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?

Yes, of course I do. I verify that they have fuel, their hours of
operation, their methods of payment, and if they have pilots on staff around
when I call, I'll even ask about any "local knowledge" that might be useful
to a transient pilot with respect to my arrival and subsequent departure.

It's not even that hard to find stories of pilots who have arrived at an
airport, expecting to take on fuel, only to discover some problem.

Of course, even calling ahead isn't fail-safe. For example, on a recent
flight from Medford, OR to Fort Collins, CO, I stopped for fuel in Idaho. I
had called ahead to make sure they had fuel and were going to be there, but
when I arrived, they had some sort of technical issue with their credit-card
system. We worked something out, but had they known of the problem before I
took off, I probably would have landed somewhere else.

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.

It's more like calling a restaurant and asking them if they have food before
you come in for dinner, if you are going to expire from hunger if no food is
available there. In reality, your analogy sucks because a) food is almost
never a critical resource for survival for folks like us, and b) if there's
one restaurant, there is almost always another across the street.

With fuel, especially when flying at the limits of endurance for one's
aircraft, or when flying in very sparsely settled areas such as exist here
in the west, you may only get one chance for fuel, especially if you apply
the kind of "planning" to your flight that you apparently do.

[...]
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.

How do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways, VORs, NDBs,
intersections. All easily done in the air.

Again, how do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

In any case, your argument relies heavily on the Garmin 430 GPS you have
installed. Your original question said NOTHING about the kind of equipment
one might be using, and as common as GPS is becoming, nice moving map GPS
receivers such as the 430 are hardly ubiquitous.

Even if I had a 430 in my plane, I would plan my flights with more detail
than you do. But I hardly think it's useful for you to equivocate on your
original question by bringing in new elements to it. If you had asked "does
anyone with a 430 still plan their flights?" I would not have even bothered
to answer.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


Using a sectional, I can plan a flight through a canyon just a few miles
wide, and be completely assured of terrain avoidance, and of being able to
correlate the chart with the visual recognition of the terrain while
enroute.

Hmm - maybe this is some of the difference. I don't fly through canyons. In
fact, I usually fly between 15,000 feet and FL 200. When I fly over canyons
I'm looking at emergency landing spots far to either side of them. Maybe
this accounts for some of the difference in our approach.


I feel pity for a pilot who thinks those kinds of generalities suffice for
the purpose of understanding the effects of terrain and man-made objects
on the flight.

Well, always nice to be pitied...



Even if I had a 430 in my plane, I would plan my flights with more detail
than you do. But I hardly think it's useful for you to equivocate on your
original question by bringing in new elements to it. If you had asked
"does anyone with a 430 still plan their flights?" I would not have even
bothered to answer.

Sorry to waste your time. In fact, since I did mention the 430 about four
posts back, one wonders why you did continue to respond. In any case, I
appreciate it - you have some interesting points. I don't agree with them,
but they are interesting.

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
Hmm - maybe this is some of the difference. I don't fly through canyons.
In fact, I usually fly between 15,000 feet and FL 200. [...]

Frankly, if it weren't for your already reasonable reputation around here,
it's at this point that I'd accuse you of being a troll.

So far, practically every aspect of your argument against flight planning
relies on equipment that is simply not available to most pilots, 100 hour or
not. You're flying with an IFR certified GPS receiver in the oxygen levels,
and that seems to be the core justification behind your failure to do
detailed flight planning.

Yet, your original post clearly implies that the difference between a person
who spends time flight planning and one who does not is simply pilot time.

Well, you sure stirred things up good. You deserve the benefit of the
doubt, and I'll assume it wasn't intentional. But you could not possibly
have lead off with a more misleading question if you'd done it on purpose.

Pete

In article , Peter Duniho wrote:
How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
guess as to where you think you might be.

Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.

--
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"

Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , Peter Duniho wrote:

How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
guess as to where you think you might be.


Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.


Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
In article , Peter Duniho wrote:

How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage,
you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you
a rough guess as to where you think you might be.


Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.

Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from someone
who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory without
backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and you will
get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.

Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
..... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning or
you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.

Does that make any sense?

Maule Driver wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , Peter Duniho wrote:


How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With
pilotage, you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does
is give you a rough guess as to where you think you might be.



Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.

Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from someone
who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory without
backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and you will
get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.

Don't take this the wrong way, but talking without thinking can lead to
saying things that don't make sense. I've been flying since 1978 and
use pilotage on almost all flights, including most IFR flights that
aren't in IMC. The biggest determinant of success, other than having
basic map reading skills, is the terrain, not the "unknownness" of the
territory.


Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
.... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning or
you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.

Does that make any sense?

It makes sense of the terrain is all about the same (some areas of the
midwest), but not for where I live. I live in northern PA and flying
mostly in PA, NY, and other states within 500 or so miles of here. I've
never been in an area, other than the urban areas around Philly, NYC,
BWI, etc., where pilotage wasn't rather easy if you are paying attention
at all. We have lots of mountains, valleys, roads, railroads, lakes,
rivers, towers, etc. that make pilotage quite easy without dead
reckoning. Sure, I use it when I need it, but that is very rare where I
fly.


Matt

Well Matt,I'd agree and disagree...
I'd agree that the area you fly in is some of the most distinctive in
the country, at least to these eyes. Though I don't think that applies
to a Western pilot flying there for the first time - it all looks the
same to the inexperienced eye...

Which is where I'd disagree that the terrain makes the difference.
Unknowingness, a state you've probably not been in for awhile, is *the*
difference.

Most of my time is in the same district. Starting in 1970 at Pgh's AGC,
buzzing around central NJ, then doing the the glider circuit from 82
to 97 starting at Sugarbush VT, Elmira, Danville NY, Blairstown NJ,
Middletown NY, Candlewood Lake CT, Solberg NJ, New Castle VA, Fairfield
PA, Chester NC, Mifflin PA, and practically every inch of the ridge
system from Wurtzboro NY to Lock Haven to Burnt Cabins to New Castle to
the Masanuttin (sp). I flew all of the above using pilotage and charts
and often at ridgetop height. Preparation and 'knowingness' made dead
reckon unnecessary (though I got lost anyway in the early days). So I
agree with your point, up to a point.

But I also went out to Hobbs NM, and Minden NV and Marfa TX, and Caddo
Mills TX, and Bozeman MT and Uvalde TX and Ionia MI and even Homestead
FL. At every site I had the chance to fly 5 to 10 cross countries in a
100 to 150 mile radius of the site. None of them are featureless
mid-western sites, at least to the locals. I was totally challenged to
follow my progress via pilotage - but I did have GPS so all my
observations are suspect.

But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.

So, I would suggest that your familiarity with the 500 miles surrounding
northern PA makes pilotage a breeze, especially at 4000' or better.
But fly in the very distinctive terrain around Reno NV or Austin TX for
the first time, and you might find your pilotage skills totally
challenged, even at 10,000'. And you might discover why a little dead
reckoning for backup might prove an ego saver.

Mark Twain wrote about our enormous ability to remember the details of
our environment in "Life on the Mississippi". As I recall, he talked
about how a river captain's job depended on his recall of every snag,
shoal, turn, wreck, and current in the ever changing river - 100s of
miles worth of detail. "Knowingness' may be one of our core
competencies as humans. Good book and a good read for pilots.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Maule Driver wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage.
It's basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With
pilotage, you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does
is give you a rough guess as to where you think you might be.

Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one
airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.

Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from
someone who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory
without backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and
you will get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.

Don't take this the wrong way, but talking without thinking can lead to
saying things that don't make sense. I've been flying since 1978 and
use pilotage on almost all flights, including most IFR flights that
aren't in IMC. The biggest determinant of success, other than having
basic map reading skills, is the terrain, not the "unknownness" of the
territory.

Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
.... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning
or you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.

Does that make any sense?

It makes sense of the terrain is all about the same (some areas of the
midwest), but not for where I live. I live in northern PA and flying
mostly in PA, NY, and other states within 500 or so miles of here. I've
never been in an area, other than the urban areas around Philly, NYC,
BWI, etc., where pilotage wasn't rather easy if you are paying attention
at all. We have lots of mountains, valleys, roads, railroads, lakes,
rivers, towers, etc. that make pilotage quite easy without dead
reckoning. Sure, I use it when I need it, but that is very rare where I
fly.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

I thought Dylan explained why very well.

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:


Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?


I thought Dylan explained why very well.

I don't as he basically excluded the terrain which is the most
signficant determination of the ease and effectiveness of pilotage.


Matt