KCHD to KMYF

I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
flying.

While there’s nothing "wrong" with the route proposed (the whole
argument being a complete fabrication by MX) a more complete response
might have been something like :
"What kind of flight do you wish to make? If VFR, and not enthused about
scud running under 1500’ over missile-firing ranges, you’ll want to plan
to remain south of the Restricted areas west of Phoenix, or give a call
to get cleared through them. Don’t assume you’ll get cleared though, as
some of them have 'continuous' status, so you may have to just avoid
them. Same goes for IFR and GPS-Direct. You can file it, but you may get
the airway V66 instead. If you don’t want to bother with the restricted
areas, just file the airway, or if VFR, keep south of these areas, or
fly the airway."

So, while there’s nothing wrong with V66, there is just everything wrong
with MX’s initial response, and his ensuing vituperative argument. No
wonder of it - those who do not fly airplanes and whose only references
to aviation are a computer screen and some out of date textbooks will
clearly not develop the reflex and practices of pilots.




In article
,
says...


On May 4, 11:16*am, Blanche wrote:

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion.

While the route suggestion is perfectly reasonable, his response to
VOR DME was not.

On May 5, 10:09*am, VOR-DME wrote:
I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
flying.

Also, if your training was like mine, in VFR training, I wasn't
trained how to set up my Navs for airway navigation. Yes, I was
trained on tracking a radial TO a VFR during my VFR training but
that's it. The purpose of that was to help me get to a point on the
sectional to locate myself should I get lost.

To figure out where I was in relationship to a VOR, my instructor
showed me how to use the FROM flag. Between the FROM flag and DME, I
was able to figure out where I was in relationship to the VOR.

I think your response was spot on with using GPS. This is the wave of
the future for VFR navigation and in my neck of the country, it's the
preferred method for IFR. Almost without exception, when I filed
airways, I got a "would you like direct" question from ATC. The one
time I wasn't equipped for /G (My GPS antenna become uncoupled) ATC
offered me a 168 mile vector which I graciously accepted as airways
put me out 50 miles off my direct routing.

I did not learn how to track airways until I started my IFR training

Most importantly, there is nothing unsafe about OROCA or MORA
navigation providing all tools are used in flight planning as Mx
implies. This applies to my flatlander flying, I can't say anything
about mountain flying as that I would stay on airways for IFR ops.

VOR-DME writes:

So, while there’s nothing wrong with V66, there is just everything wrong
with MX’s initial response, and his ensuing vituperative argument.

In other words, I was right, but your personal animosity towards me made it
impossible for you to accept that fact.

If you allow yourself to consider the messenger more important than the
message, you make yourself vulnerable to manipulation. Demogogues know all
about this.

No wonder of it - those who do not fly airplanes and whose only references
to aviation are a computer screen and some out of date textbooks will
clearly not develop the reflex and practices of pilots.

What reflexes do you need to develop a flight plan?

writes:

Routing and flight planning I don't go to MSFS for scenarios. I use a
real bonified flight planner and fly it in the real bonified world
that expands beyond a computer monitor (or two)

I don't use MSFS for flight planning, either, as its planning features are
very primitive and not very realistic. I plan as I would for a real-world
flight and then fly that in the sim.

All the flight planning in the world doesn't change the fact when you
plan something and something uhhhh, like a cloud (understand not
likely in Phoenix but a scenario) is between you and your
destination. In all my MSFS sim time, this has never happened to me,
yet in the real world, I have had to deviate to avoid the cloud while
VFR several times while ensuring I remain clear of airspace while
enroute.

Then you don't have your sim configured correctly. Try Active Sky.

So, I am pretty safe to say Mx is NOT qualified to answering
questions about flight planning.

Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.

UMMM WRONG.......

Flight planning DOES NOT stop after starting the engine. But it's
obvious you don't know this.

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I plan as I would for a real-world flight and then fly that in the sim.

What flight planner do you use????