Who does flight plans?

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.

Maule Driver wrote:


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.

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Maule Driver wrote:


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.

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
(not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.

The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)

Grand Canyon! Yeah, that territory is at the same time feature-rich and
feature-less depending on your familiarity. Damn, I've been so lost
there! Pilotage in engineless aircraft 1500' above the terrain can be
nerve-racking - where is that damn Hornell?

I landed 'out' at Grand Canyon once in a sailplane. The PIK20b was a
2nd generation fiberglass gliders with a laminar type airfoil known to
be bug sensitive (bug smashes significantly degraded the performance).
A weak willed Citabria came to give me an aero retrieve. As he began
the takeoff roll, a rain sprinkle started. We ran down the runway and
when we reached my normal liftoff speed, I couldn't. Rain had degraded
the the performance that much. The added drag of me rolling kept him on
the ground. He got off before I did with his wheels kissing the grass.
I dragged off the end of the asphalt and found out why they call it
Grand Canyon - thank goodness. Quite a drop off as I recall... Is that
the same N38?

Interestingly I sat down at the tube last night and they were doing a
show on the Mississippi and featured Sam Clemens/Mark Twain's stories
about piloting the Mississippi. Even interviewed a river pilot about
the test they have to take and his ability to draw a detailed 100 mile
map of the river from memory.

Matt Whiting wrote:

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was discussed. A
few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an aircraft
into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force when
you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
produce paralysis or death. The claim was made that flying the aircraft into the
trees (basically a "greaser landing" in the upper limbs) was far safer than
stalling it in.

I decided at that time that the argument seems reasonable to me and that I would
try to fly the plane in if the situation ever came up.

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.

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.