Navigation flight planning during training

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
Thanks for all the discussion on this topic. Regardless of your
personal opinion on the subject, this is a topic of high relevance due
to the rapid changes in technology taking place in the way we fly.

I agree it is a subject that is very relevent.


One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not
equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics.
Automation has the potential to allow us to focus on the important
tasks and let the computer take care of the mundane tasks.

I think you would find that in order to know the student had a full grasp of
the fundamentals you would end up teaching them the "old" way. Automation is
great. Computers are great, hell they allow us to have this conversation.
But just like I still need to be able to ask a local fellow flyer a question
from time to time there will be times when computers and the internet aren't
going to be available to the pilot.


I once had
a student many years ago who computed all headings with great
precision, by hand using an E6B, only to find that he had reversed all
headings by 180 degress. He was all caught up in the details of the
computation that he forgot to see the big picture. With automation
that is less likely to happen. However, if it is not taught properly,
it can also be harmful.


The exact same thing could easily happen in a flight planning program or
even worse. He types in the wrong airport code and flys the plan without
catching it.


There was an article in a recent aviation magazine (I can't remember
the magazine title) where they compared students who learned to fly in
glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments, and the
conclusion was that students who learned in the glass environment were
just as good as or even better than the previous generation.



I'm sure they did. I also wouldn't be surprised if those trained in glass
didn't transition easier to steam.


So obviously a discussion on modernizing training methods is something
that need to be taken seriously.


The problem is there are lots of different flight planning programs and
services out there. Which one are you going to teach. All the ones I've used
seem to be designed so that someone who understands the "old" way can figure
them out. The flip side of that is that if you teach someone via a specific
program are they going to be able to understand the operation of another
program or even the same one after a major revision?

"Andy Lutz" wrote

This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight
planning, what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS,
but you scared me.

What does a typical checkride look like?

Whoa, big fella!

You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Are you a reasonably intelligent person? Do you have a determination to
take on this thing called flying, and achieve it?

If you answered yes, then don't worry about what happens on the check ride.
You have a person that is as interested as you are, in seeing you get your
private ticket. He is called your instructor. DE's want you to get it too,
as long as the DE is not one of those people with a goal of making you look
foolish, and your instructor will not send you to one of them.

Take one step at a time. When you master one skill, you build on it, and
then learn a new skill and master it.

It is like eating. You can't shove a whole meal in your mouth at one time.
You eat a big feast -one bite- at a time.

Take a deep breath. Stand back and look at what you have learned, and
relax, and enjoy the new experiences, and the challenges of learning new
skills.

You can, and will do it, if you stick with it.
--
Jim in NC

Suffice it to say that I am in complete disagreement with your position.
Electronic aids are wonderful, but every pilot needs to know how to navigate
by pilotage.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?

During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
ground speed.

All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.

I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

destination into a machine and letting it do the flight plan breeds a
little too much complacency. Putting a little thought into your routing
can yield great rewards.

Yeah, true. I am still quite bad at doing it the old fashioned way
(even after passing a checkride) but I still take the trouble to do it
that way because it feels more rewarding. Besides, just using the GPS
makes it a bit like flying in a simulator. However I do find it hard
to do a diversion to an unknown airport and fold the chart to draw an
imaginary line, figure out a new heading, correct for wind etc. I tend
to cheat in that situation and get help from flight following or rely
on the GPS if I have one.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?

Hey, what have you got against sextants!?

(I finished reading "Fate is the Hunter" a couple weeks ago.)

Frankly I don't trust any method that involves pens or pencils - the pens
are likely to run out of ink at the worst time and I always manage to break
the points on the pencils.

;-)

I think many people are interpreting 'computer-aided flight planning'
to mean GPS navigation. That is totally not what I meant. I re-read my
original post, and I didn't even use the word GPS anywhere.

I fully agree that pilotage and dead reckoning are critical skills. My
question was not about in-flight use of electronic aids, but their use
on the ground during preflight planning.

Furthermore, I am not taking a 'postion'. I am raising it as a topic
that needs to be discussed.





On Mar 13, 5:56 pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
Suffice it to say that I am in complete disagreement with your position.
Electronic aids are wonderful, but every pilot needs to know how to navigate
by pilotage.

Bob Gardner

On Mar 13, 12:16 pm, "Andy Lutz" wrote:
This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training

When I was 9 hours into my PPL training, this would have sounded way
overwhelming to me too. At that point, I hadn't even learned to land
an airplane reliably under optimal conditions. At the 60-70 hour
mark, it didn't seem so bad at all.

When I was 9 hours into my multiengine training, I could barely land
the airplane single engine. At the 25 hour mark, a partial panel
single engine NDB approach with circle to land on a short runway
seemed no big deal.

Trust me, it gets better. Look at the PTS if you like, but realize
much of it may not make sense just yet. Many instructors believe in
trotting out the PTS from day one, to keep your eyes on the prize, I
suppose. I don't think much of that strategy. The PTS is a test
standard, not a training syllabus. Your instructor has (I assume) a
training syllabus. Many fine ones are commercially available, and
many flight schools have their own. By the time you get to the end of
the syllabus, the things I discuss will not seem so overwhelming.

but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
scared me.

I'm sorry I scared you. That was not the intent. The intent was to
explain to another instructor what I thought was missing in his
asessment of the utility of manual (as opposed to automated) flight
planning. I would be more than a bit surprised if, at 9 hours, you
were exposed to most of the concepts I discussed. That will come.
Right now, those are not your big issues. The only navigation I would
teach a student at your level is basic pilotage and map reading. I
wouldn't expect you to be venturing more than 10-20 miles from home
just yet. At this stage of the game, you need to be focusing on
aircarft control through the flight envelope, flight with reference to
the ground, and basic takeoff and landing skills. If you're really
sharp, you might just be soloing - but that would be unusual these
days.

Since you have already started flying, consider taking and passing
your written test as soon as practical. If you are still worried
after that (it will include a lot of flight planning stuff) then ask
me the question again, and we'll discuss it.

Michael

I think you sort of anwered you own question by the "I don't use these
on a typical flight"

I like to think of it like learning Algebra. You don't do all that
homework to learn how to do homework.
You do it so that you have repeated the processes enough that you
retain them.

Actually you probably do use much of what you did on a typical flight
or at least you should.
While you won't do them in detail you will use much the same processes
on a larger scale.

Here are some things I think you should be doing on typical flights
after you get your rating..
Figuring how much endurance do you have. (Fuel - Hours)
Figuring Magnetic Headings for your destination.
Figuring long will it take to get to your destination.
Checking your route and progress with check points. (You hopefully
don't just blindly follow the GPS)
Recalculate the above in the air if your destination changes.

True GPS's can make most of these easy, But I have had 3 GPS's fail on
me. Two were actual GPS Failures the 3rd was a Notamed outage of the
GPS Signal.

The point being you never know when you might have to find a pencil
and map and figure out where you are and where you are going. It is a
skill you should be able to do, which is why we teach it and make you
practice it over and over again as a student. It is up to you to stay
profecient at them after you become a licensed pilot.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Thanks for the encouragement. I did sound a bit scared as I read my first
post. I have heard about most of the things you mentioned in my reading. I
got the test booklet from ASA last year and have read it through a few
times. Without the instructor walking with me through it too, it was
sounding rather complicated to do spur of the moment. But now that I have a
CFI to help explain things one concept at a time, and train to competence as
I need it, I should do much better.

I guess I'm feeling that more may be expected of me than I think I can do.
My instructor, a MCFI, by the way, I trust implicitly. He told me after my
last lesson that most people take their check ride at 65-70 hours and he
thought I may be ready at 50 or less. That is scary too. But as I said, I
trust him and he won't push me beyond what I'm ready for. I want to push out
of my mind that 50 hour comment and not expect anything like it, but it
threatens to hang aroung and plump my ego, and there is no room for an ego
in those small cockpits. I haven't soloed yet and I think I still have a way
to go. I expect I'l be sharing about that here when the time comes.

OK, for now, just breathe! Take lessons one at a time. I'll worry about not
learning what I've been taught, after I've been taught it.

-Andy

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 12:16 pm, "Andy Lutz" wrote:
This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training

When I was 9 hours into my PPL training, this would have sounded way
overwhelming to me too. At that point, I hadn't even learned to land
an airplane reliably under optimal conditions. At the 60-70 hour
mark, it didn't seem so bad at all.

When I was 9 hours into my multiengine training, I could barely land
the airplane single engine. At the 25 hour mark, a partial panel
single engine NDB approach with circle to land on a short runway
seemed no big deal.

Trust me, it gets better. Look at the PTS if you like, but realize
much of it may not make sense just yet. Many instructors believe in
trotting out the PTS from day one, to keep your eyes on the prize, I
suppose. I don't think much of that strategy. The PTS is a test
standard, not a training syllabus. Your instructor has (I assume) a
training syllabus. Many fine ones are commercially available, and
many flight schools have their own. By the time you get to the end of
the syllabus, the things I discuss will not seem so overwhelming.

but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have
lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight
planning,
what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
scared me.

I'm sorry I scared you. That was not the intent. The intent was to
explain to another instructor what I thought was missing in his
asessment of the utility of manual (as opposed to automated) flight
planning. I would be more than a bit surprised if, at 9 hours, you
were exposed to most of the concepts I discussed. That will come.
Right now, those are not your big issues. The only navigation I would
teach a student at your level is basic pilotage and map reading. I
wouldn't expect you to be venturing more than 10-20 miles from home
just yet. At this stage of the game, you need to be focusing on
aircarft control through the flight envelope, flight with reference to
the ground, and basic takeoff and landing skills. If you're really
sharp, you might just be soloing - but that would be unusual these
days.

Since you have already started flying, consider taking and passing
your written test as soon as practical. If you are still worried
after that (it will include a lot of flight planning stuff) then ask
me the question again, and we'll discuss it.

Michael

On 2007-03-13 15:18:30 -0700, said:



destination into a machine and letting it do the flight plan breeds a
little too much complacency. Putting a little thought into your routing
can yield great rewards.

Yeah, true. I am still quite bad at doing it the old fashioned way
(even after passing a checkride) but I still take the trouble to do it
that way because it feels more rewarding. Besides, just using the GPS
makes it a bit like flying in a simulator. However I do find it hard
to do a diversion to an unknown airport and fold the chart to draw an
imaginary line, figure out a new heading, correct for wind etc. I tend
to cheat in that situation and get help from flight following or rely
on the GPS if I have one.

Why do you do it that way? Too much time with head down in the cockpit.
I just look for a major feature near the airport (or on the way to it)
and turn toward it. I've got a pretty rough idea of how far it is.

How do you think examiners know if the candidate got it right? They
know that the diversion airport is that-a-way. At any time during the
flight, I know which airport I would divert to and what direction I
would turn to get there. Trying to figure it out when you already have
an emergency is too late.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor