Who does flight plans?

[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