Navigation strategy on a short flight

On Jun 26, 12:59*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim:

The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF.

There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield
about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a
NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north.

What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ?

I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from
Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my
distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and
there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I
decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would
place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose
was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the
right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've
gone further than I actually have.

Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had
flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was
doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight
towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the
airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at
Casa Grande.

This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
route under these conditions?

Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments
despite being VFR in VMC. (If I had been using pilotage, I would have simply
followed Interstate 10, which practically leads to the ramp, but I
deliberately avoided looking for the highway.)

I conducted the flight mostly at 3500 feet, although I suppose that's not very
important here.

I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
navigation log before your flight. Even when following the VORs,
airways, etc, you need a basic nav log to predict and keep track of
your position throughout the flight. I think Flight Simulator has
this function(?), but you should make it by hand, if you've never done
it, to help understand how it works. With the Nav log, you wouldn't
try to "...judge my distance from the VOR..." by looking for it; you'd
know approximately when you were going to cross it by looking at your
clock.

I don't think I would have followed V105 in this case, I would've just
followed the appropriate radial outbound from PXR VOR, followed my
position using the clock and my nav log, checked my position about
midway by switching my VOR momentarily to either of the neighboring
VORs, then watched the clock again to make sure I didn't fly past the
airport.

But the key to all that is the nav log you make before your flight.
All the times and positions of the key points, including the midway
waypoint is on the log, then you just follow along. If your planned
waypoint doesn't appear at the proper time, then you take measures to
reestablish your position.

By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

FlyCherokee writes:

I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
and then changed my mind once in the air.

You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
navigation log before your flight.

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav
log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight.

I have a mental plan of sorts, but I don't write it down. I often plot things
on SkyVector and use that to derive points that I must verify during flight.

I think Flight Simulator has
this function(?), but you should make it by hand, if you've never done
it, to help understand how it works. With the Nav log, you wouldn't
try to "...judge my distance from the VOR..." by looking for it; you'd
know approximately when you were going to cross it by looking at your
clock.

Thus far I've made virtually no attempt to do anything by the clock, although
I suppose I should. The inability to determine my actual ground speed
discourages me from trying to calculate anything involving speed vs. time. In
order to determine my position through dead reckoning, I need to know my
ground speed. But in order to determine my ground speed, I need to know my
position. If I know neither ground speed nor position, it's not immediately
obvious to me how I'm going to solve for either of them.

I don't think I would have followed V105 in this case, I would've just
followed the appropriate radial outbound from PXR VOR, followed my
position using the clock and my nav log, checked my position about
midway by switching my VOR momentarily to either of the neighboring
VORs, then watched the clock again to make sure I didn't fly past the
airport.

How would you determine your ground speed?

But the key to all that is the nav log you make before your flight.
All the times and positions of the key points, including the midway
waypoint is on the log, then you just follow along. If your planned
waypoint doesn't appear at the proper time, then you take measures to
reestablish your position.

But here again, I need an accurate ground speed to make these kinds of
calculations, which is problematic if I don't have an accurate position.

A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
this information going to be?

By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
mirror what my result in real life would be.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
FlyCherokee writes:

I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
and then changed my mind once in the air.

You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
navigation log before your flight.

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

I agree.

In article ,
says...


writes:

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

I agree.


I have to agree as well.
An inept pilot, with no real understanding of flight planning or
navigation, launches on a VFR trip without any plan for how to execute
the flight and no tools to monitor progress. The result is he gets
behind the airplane, gets completely lost, executes bungling routing
maneuvers to try to get oriented and ATC has to intervene to clean up
the mess before he become a danger to himself and others. MSFS did a
fairly good job of showing this pilot how inept he was.

Does MSFS have an NTSB reporting function?

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...


writes:

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

I agree.


I have to agree as well.
An inept pilot, with no real understanding of flight planning or
navigation, launches on a VFR trip without any plan for how to execute
the flight and no tools to monitor progress. The result is he gets
behind the airplane, gets completely lost, executes bungling routing
maneuvers to try to get oriented and ATC has to intervene to clean up
the mess before he become a danger to himself and others. MSFS did a
fairly good job of showing this pilot how inept he was.

In that respect, yes, it was a good simulation of a clueless naif trying
to fly an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

I agree.

Let's add sarcasm to the list of things about which you know little to
nothing.

Sitting in front of a small table in a dark room with the only illumination
being from a computer monitor is not a realistic simulation of flying an
airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...


You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
navigation log before your flight.

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log
my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.




Forgetting things that are not facts is the same as not knowing the facts. A
navigation log is the word pilots, instructors, textbooks, schools publishers
use for, well a navigation log. It is not a misnomer for anything. It has
always been called a navigation log, because you log your progress. Learned
early in pilot training, its use is essential to the successful outcome of
every flight, VFR or IFR. It is the link between the planning and execution
phases of every flight. Today, the use of the nav log in flight is beginning
to become less critical, as the GPS navigators and glass cockpits do all of
its functions automatically, and flight planning software can upload the
planning data directly to the navigator, but many pilots keep a log anyway.
Certainly a pilot who refuses GPS and glass cockpits cannot simulate real
flight without a log. Little wonder you got lost!

Do you think there are large, open desks with desk lamps in airplanes? For the
decades I’ve been flying I have never been on a flight where I didn’t have
something on my lap or knee to write on. This is essential to every flight.
You believe, and you want us to believe that your simulation is good enough
that you could step into a real flight environment without difficulty, and now
you admit you don’t know what a navigation log is and you never write anything
down because there is not enough desk space and not enough light!

A Cessna 152 is an extremely fast machine. It travels at 90Kt; more than 30
times man’s normal walking speed. All of our reflexes and responses are, on an
evolutionary scale, tuned to this walking speed. To manage a transportation
device that travels at thirty times this speed requires special training.
Since you do not have this training, it comes as no surprise that your
simulated efforts result in your being far behind the airplane, unable to keep
up with events.

You are, of course, free to use this simulation program in any way you please,
and there is nothing to criticize in having fun with the parts you enjoy. You
must however put aside any notion that your exercise is a faithful simulation
of the use of any real airplane, or that your experiences could translate to
any useful skill in operating a real airplane.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

But here again, I need an accurate ground speed to make these kinds of
calculations, which is problematic if I don't have an accurate position.

A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
this information going to be?

Accurate enough that this is how real pilots actually do this stuff out
in the real world. A difference of a few knots or a few degrees is not
going to wreck your navigation plan anyway.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jul 2, 10:47*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
FlyCherokee writes:
I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
and then changed my mind once in the air.
In addition to considering the max elevations of peaks, ridges,
towers, etc in the area, I generally like about 3000 AGL minimum for
safety in case of engine failure. That doesn't necessarily mean 3000
over the highest thing in the area, but 3000 over the predominant
terrain level (to leave enough gliding time and range)

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav
log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight. *

You should work this into your sim flying. It is one of the
differences between actual flying and simulator experience: In actual
flight training, a flight instructor would emphasize the importance of
a nav log, and would not let you fly cross country without one. You
would feel the need yourself, because being lost (for real) in a small
airplane is a scary and life-threatening situation; sooner or later
the fuel is going to run out and you are going to land, if not on a
runway, then somewhere, but you are surely coming down. It's very
important (and just plain good airmanship) to always know where you
are, and the nav log is one of the basic tools for doing this.

If you think you have little room on your table for writing, then
please go to your local small airport and ask to sit in a 172. Then
imagine getting jerked around in turbulence while trying to unfold and
refold a sectional chart, while computing wind speed on the E6B, and
updating you nav log on a tiny clipboard that's strapped to your right
leg, all while maintaining course and altitude and scanning for
traffic!


Thus far I've made virtually no attempt to do anything by the clock, although
I suppose I should. The inability to determine my actual ground speed
discourages me from trying to calculate anything involving speed vs. time.. In
order to determine my position through dead reckoning, I need to know my
ground speed. But in order to determine my ground speed, I need to know my
position. If I know neither ground speed nor position, it's not immediately
obvious to me how I'm going to solve for either of them.

The clock and compass are your most fundamental nav tools, and
certainly you can estimate your ground speed! I think your missing
some of the most fun parts of navigating!; i.e., a course line on a
chart, a compass, a clock, and a bunch of waypoints to check your
position/speed and progress. You estimate your ground speed by
setting up waypoints along your course, timing your motion between
them, and then computing ground speed. Or, better, get yourself an
E6B flight computer which will calculate this and the actual wind.
Then you use that calculated wind to recompute the predicted times to
your subsequent waypoints.

Use ground features for waypoints, e.g., crossing rivers, lakes,
highways, etc. If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints. If none of those, then I would chart a
different course so that I had something to verify my position. I
think the basic flying handbooks from the FAA show to do these
computations.


A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
this information going to be?

Today's winds-aloft forecasts are more than good enough for
navigation. Also, you will directly calculate the winds at your
altitude when you reach your first waypoint.

By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
mirror what my result in real life would be.
For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
job in this area.