Who does flight plans?

I do the same. The closest thing to computerized planning I use
is aeroplanner if I'm away from a map and need a quick idea
of distance/time.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Still do the plans the old fashioned way.
Ruler, map, piece of paper and my E6B.
Most waypoints are about 10NM apart.
The nice thing is that it works every time and that without power or
batteries.
And it is still fun to do.

-Kees

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? [...]

I'm well past 100 hours. For me, it just depends, but it appears I always
plan with more detail than you do.

I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. I don't correct
individual legs for winds; I just look at the worst-case scenario and use
that as my cruise speed for the entire trip. Winds aloft can vary so much
from the forecast anyway that it's pointless to try to include them with any
greater detail than that. I always carry at least an hour of fuel in
reserve, and on shorter flights (two or three hours or so) it can be more
than that.

It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and ETA
with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at any
time anyway. The initial planning is just so you have some idea of whether
the flight can be done with the fuel on board, and generally how long you
can expect to be in the airplane.

I find it funny that your question uses the phrase "with winds and all", as
if the winds are the most important element of the flight plan. They are,
IMHO, the least important during planning (though they become very important
during flight). The "and all" includes a bunch of much more important
things.

For routes that I'm not familiar with, I do more detailed planning. This
includes, of course, noting airspaces, landmarks for waypoints and general
navigation purposes, terrain for inclusion in cruise altitude
decision-making, possible emergency landing sites, etc. The "this is what
will happen" goal is to find an efficient route from Point A to Point B,
while either avoiding or anticipating any impediments along the way. The
"this is what might happen" goal is to identify various things that
shouldn't happen, but which might anyway, and develop strategies for dealing
with them. Knowing where one might land if the headwind is greater than
expected, adjusting the route for friendlier emergency landing sites (if
possible), identifying alternate airports in case of things like the
original destination being closed, equipment trouble, emergency bathroom
break, etc. (yes, there's overlap in those various criteria...but it's not
always the same overlap).

One thing I'm surprised at is that you include only one or two waypoints in
your plan. Perhaps you are flying the same routes over and over again, in
which case I can understand that. But I only neglect waypoints like that
for routes where I am completely familiar with the terrain along and around
the entire route. For any route I haven't flown repeatedly and recently, I
like to know some good waypoints that I'll pass every 10 to 15 minutes.
Note that this is also true for the familiar routes, it's just that I've got
those waypoints memorized in that case (and I know roughly what time during
the flight I should expect to see them).

I have a reasonably reliable Loran in my airplane, and so I admit I do slack
a bit on the groundspeed calculations while enroute. However, I need to
have the waypoints for backup in case the Loran goes south, and even with
the Loran, on longer flights I am still double-checking my groundspeed with
waypoints every 30-60 minutes. In addition, the Loran is much better with
groundspeed than it is with absolute position, and I'm not always flying a
route for which the Loran has waypoints along my route in its database
anyway. So I need the waypoints for off-airway navigation (both "where" and
"when").

Note that having a Loran (or even IFR-certified GPS) doesn't obviate the
need for proper planning. Even if the equipment was 100% reliable, you
still need to actually inspect the route for the details along the way, to
avoid obstacles and so that you can double-check your navigation equipment
(even the GPS, which is supposed to tell you when it's lying, can
theoretically go wrong without you knowing...you don't want to be the first
pilot that happens to, and not know it when it's happening ). But on top
of all that, you need a backup plan in case you lose your nav equipment for
any reason (electronics get fried, electrical failure, bird hits your
antenna, whatever).

I readily admit to not filling out a full "flight log", and definitely
abbreviating my planning from what's typically required for FAA testing.
But much of the same detail needs to go into the actual planning, IMHO, even
if it doesn't get written down.

As for the computerized planning, well...probably if I didn't spend so much
time with computers already, I'd be all over that. But my life already
revolves around them as it is. Much of my enjoyment of flying comes from
the somewhat anachronistic aspects of it, and I actually like spreading the
charts out on the floor and measuring distances with my plotter. It does
take longer, that's for sure. But for me, it's all part of the whole
experience.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? [...]

I'm well past 100 hours. For me, it just depends, but it appears I always
plan with more detail than you do.

I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I always
carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights (two or
three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this. I usually take off with a full
tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow, which I know from experience is
very accurate. Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my
time to destination. I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need
it. If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over
1200 hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and
find an airport.

It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and
ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at
any time anyway.

I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled in
flight, with very minimal ground planning.

For routes that I'm not familiar with, I do more detailed planning. This
includes, of course, noting airspaces, landmarks for waypoints and general
navigation purposes, terrain for inclusion in cruise altitude
decision-making, possible emergency landing sites, etc.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC, but
beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots? In any case, I'm
generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the terrain beyond some
general altitude information.

The "this is what will happen" goal is to find an efficient route from
Point A to Point B, while either avoiding or anticipating any impediments
along the way. The "this is what might happen" goal is to identify
various things that shouldn't happen, but which might anyway, and develop
strategies for dealing with them. Knowing where one might land if the
headwind is greater than expected, adjusting the route for friendlier
emergency landing sites (if possible), identifying alternate airports in
case of things like the original destination being closed, equipment
trouble, emergency bathroom break, etc. (yes, there's overlap in those
various criteria...but it's not always the same overlap).

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123 is
changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

I have a reasonably reliable Loran in my airplane, and so I admit I do
slack a bit on the groundspeed calculations while enroute. However, I
need to have the waypoints for backup in case the Loran goes south, and
even with the Loran, on longer flights I am still double-checking my
groundspeed with waypoints every 30-60 minutes.

Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?


Note that having a Loran (or even IFR-certified GPS) doesn't obviate the
need for proper planning. Even if the equipment was 100% reliable, you
still need to actually inspect the route for the details along the way, to
avoid obstacles and so that you can double-check your navigation equipment
(even the GPS, which is supposed to tell you when it's lying, can
theoretically go wrong without you knowing...

I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but how
can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"? I know about RAIM
errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past four years of flying,
and even during the errors the navigation was accurate. But, once again,
even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held backup failed, and
the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so I couldn't get
vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in the US without
seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip.


Much of my enjoyment of flying comes from the somewhat anachronistic
aspects of it, and I actually like spreading the charts out on the floor
and measuring distances with my plotter. It does take longer, that's for
sure. But for me, it's all part of the whole experience.

Now this I fully appreciate - I rarely do it, but I can see why it is
appealing to some people.

I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about
maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go
decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am
current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane the
geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by technology.

Michael

In article , Michael 182 wrote:
Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, I'd hardly call checking your progress every 30 to 60 minutes
'continously checking your waypoints', but the difference is it keeps
you more situationally aware, and keeps you in practise in case the
electrical system some day DOES take a dump. It also means you notice a
lot more about the flight, such as ground features, and generally makes
the flight a lot more fun.

My VFR flight planning approach is to draw a line on the chart, mark it
up with mileage points, then keep track of my progress on the same chart
during the flight (by marking my position whenever I notice anything of
interest on the ground, in minutes past the hour). If I then get unsure
of my position, it's trivially easy to find out where you are - it takes
seconds. Once you've navigated this method for a while, it feels like
you have a GPS built into your mind. I've navigated accurately from
coast to coast in the US using this method. It's enormously satisfying.

My day job involves messing with computers. I have a hobby of messing
with computers in my spare time. Flying allows me to get away from all
of that - hence I typically like older planes with the minimum required
electronics (which for me means a transponder and 720 channel COM
radio).

--
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"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I
always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
(two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the
mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow,
which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information earlier.

I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III to
fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own independent
failure.

If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over 1200
hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and find
an airport.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume. In any case, I
don't feel that in-flight is the best time to be "figuring out" where you
are. It's MUCH better to already know where you are, and know what your
available options are.

In the event that things start going wrong in-flight, I would much rather
spend my limited attention flying the airplane and dealing with the
situation, than to waste time doing work that could have been done on the
ground, or as the flight progressed.

It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and
ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at
any time anyway.

I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled
in flight, with very minimal ground planning.

All of what? The statement you quoted pertains only to something that has
to be done in flight. I would argue that not only can it easily be handled
in flight, it can ONLY be handled in flight. But you can't do the
cross-check unless you have something to cross-check against, and that
requires preflight action.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your fuel-flow
meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that function...not all
do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time left on the fuel-flow
meter, you consider that good. If for some reason the ETE shows you past
your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an arrival somewhere else
while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for the
possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a pretty
lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is one of
those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning while
enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where that's
assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect the
entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable emergency
landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact lat/long of where
I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good idea of the
topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what direction turn
will likely be required at any given point along the flight.

Sometimes the route simply cannot be done with reasonably assurance of safe
landing sites, which is what I described as "hostile terrain" in a previous
post. It doesn't mean I won't fly over those areas, necessarily, but it
does mean I take extra precautions and I at least am aware of the section(s)
of the route that will require even greater vigilance with respect to engine
monitoring and careful identification of even the most marginal-but-doable
emergency landing site (you'd be surprised at what can be found even in
hostile terrain, if you're looking for it).

In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone would
fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If you're flying
a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little chance of landing
off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the terrain, that's one
thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to know what the ground
is like along their route.

You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far away
from any services.

There's just too much information available from VFR charts for any pilot
with any sense of self-preservation and who takes the charge of "pilot in
command" seriously to ignore that information.

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight decision
making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of having to
make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having considered likely
disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during the flight.

Don't forget, many aircraft accidents happened only because the pilot was
distracted from the duty of controlling the aircraft. Anything you can do
to minimize the distractions while flying the aircraft, you should. This
definitely includes proper and thorough pre-flight planning.

Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel left,
you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available. Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than that.
The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't be
close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were cross-checking?

But, once again, even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held
backup failed, and the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so
I couldn't get vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in
the US without seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip.

So your plan is to just keep heading in a specific direction until you see
an airport? That's not much of a plan, IMHO.

I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about
maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go
decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am
current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane
the geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by
technology.

IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots of
potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there who
don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared to
many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's clear
to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during my
pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't pass
muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely abdicating
their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety of the flight,
and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of silicon.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I
always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
(two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute.


I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel
flow, which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

I don't understand this comment. Obviously I plan, at least in my head, fuel
flow and distance. But this is not very extensive planning - in fact it is
almost second nature. I'm filing IFR, and I have to give time enroute and
fuel on board as two of the items in the plan.


Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information
earlier.

That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within 10%.
During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of respect
for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done in my
head.


I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III
to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own
independent failure.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume.

Come on, I have dual in-panel navigation and two levels of battery backup
with a Pilot III and a battery operated NavCom. And, as a way last resort, I
have a cell phone. Yes, anything could happen, but I don't see how
pre-flight planning will help me here if everything went south, which, once
again, I just don't believe will happen. There is too much redundancy here.

If I was in VMC, there is really no emergency. Fly until I find an airport
and land. Virtually every midsize town (and most small towns) in the west
has an airport.

If I was in IMC I fail to see how doing extensive pre-flight route planning
would help. I know where I am while I'm flying from the GPS. If and when it
goes out (and the handheld goes out...) I'll know where I am at that point.
Assuming I still have the radios, or the handheld NavCom I'll contact ATC
and get assistance. If I don't have any communications or Nav equipment, I
may be in for a lot of trouble. but remember, I'm IMC at this point. I don't
believe that pre-flight planning of waypoints will be a lot of help at this
point...

But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check
against, and that requires preflight action.

Uh, no. That's what having on-board navigation equipment allows you to do.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your
fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that
function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time
left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason
the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an
arrival somewhere else while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for
the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a
pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is
one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning
while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where
that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Sorry, I disagree. Once again, I spend as much time as is necessary to fully
brief myself and make weather decisions. I make a quick ETE and fuel plan
with a very wide margin for error. I have invested in equipment and backup,
and know how to use them very well. I don't see this as sloppy or dangerous.
In fact, I believe it makes for much safer enroute environment than
extensive plotting on charts. Having said that, I fully respect pilotage,
and do not consider those that use it unsafe - they just fly with different
parameters than I do.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect
the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable
emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact
lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good
idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what
direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the
flight.

So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window for
a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous. Sectionals
give very broad altitude and terrain information. There is no way you will
have time during a true emergency to use them or your preflight planning of
emergency landing spots. You will look down, pick a spot, and follow the
emergency checklist. At least I hope you will. I have had two in-flight
emergencies, one in IMC. Preflight route planning would have had absolutely
no impact on the situations. Having emergency checklists memorized and
concentration on flying the plane was completely the key.

In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone
would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If
you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little
chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the
terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to
know what the ground is like along their route.

Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid open
water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest is
flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are pointy.
Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional to know
this stuff.


You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far
away from any services.

Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight
decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of
having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having
considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during
the flight.

I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
do it all the time.


Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel
left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available.
Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than
that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't
be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.


Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
that is spelled) as well. Do you do that? And, more reasonably, by your
reasoning you should clearly invest in better and safer technology than you
have. Anything else is clearly unsafe.

The reality is there is no reason for you to do either. You fly to the level
of planning and safety that is legal and within your comfort zone. You sound
like a prudent pilot. I'm happy to know you are out there flying safely when
our paths cross. But your insistence on your particular brand of safety is
not convincing me.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before you
take off? I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a
restaurant and asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.


I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
cross-checking?

I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and see
what town it is. I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways,
VORs, NDBs, intersections. All easily done in the air.



IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots
of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there
who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared
to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's
clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during
my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't
pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely
abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety
of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of
silicon.

I guess we are at the agree to disagree point. I don't see myself abdicating
anything. I'm not making any judgments about your level of safety when you
fly - other than knowing you spend more time plotting on charts I have no
idea if you are a safe pilot of not. But none of your arguments you put
forth here convince me that your methodology is safer than mine. In fact, I
would argue that the level of redundancy and the experience I have in
putting the technology to use might make my methodology safer than yours.
But then again, I may be wrong...


Pete

"Michael 182" wrote:

[...]
I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute. [...]

Another way of saying this is that roughly estimating these quantities
in one's head can be accurate to (say) 25%, which is sufficient for
trips that don't have unusual risk characteristics. If the airplane's
endurance may get tight, or ground services iffy, then more formal
planning may be called for. But at least in my case, that is very rare.

You're making a lot of sense on this issue, Michael.


- FChE

[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.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute.

Then how do you know what your actual groundspeed is? Oh, right...I
forgot...you trust your GPS completely to tell you this. And of course, you
will never be without your GPS.

[...]
That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within
10%. During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of
respect for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done
in my head.

Then why did you suggest you don't do that part of the planning? You are
now asserting that you do. I never said the planning should be HARD. I
simply said it should be done.

[...]
So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window
for a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous.

That's right, it would be ridiculous to do it that way. I never said I did.
The point is that having properly planned the flight, and properly
navigating along the route of the flight, you know at all times where you're
going to land. If "the fan stops", you simply land where you planned to.

Sectionals give very broad altitude and terrain information.

I guess that depends on your definition of "broad". I find sectionals to be
quite detailed in their depiction of altitude and terrain information
(whatever the difference between the two might be...not sure why you use two
different words to describe basically the same information). Using a
sectional, I can plan a flight through a canyon just a few miles wide, and
be completely assured of terrain avoidance, and of being able to correlate
the chart with the visual recognition of the terrain while enroute.
Sectionals certainly have FAR more detailed terrain elevation data than any
GPS I've seen.

There is no way you will have time during a true emergency to use them or
your preflight planning of emergency landing spots. You will look down,
pick a spot, and follow the emergency checklist.

IMHO, if you are picking the landing spot after the emergency commences, you
have failed in your duty as pilot in command. This is whether you've done
any flight planning or not.

[...]
Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid
open water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest
is flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are
pointy. Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional
to know this stuff.

I feel pity for a pilot who thinks those kinds of generalities suffice for
the purpose of understanding the effects of terrain and man-made objects on
the flight.

You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are
available. You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft.
You need to know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely
populated areas. You need to know whether your route takes you along a
major highway, or far away from any services.

Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

You can't possibly, not without some other reference that is basically
identical to a sectional.

[...]
I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
do it all the time.

No, it doesn't sound like you do. Not really. There's a big difference
between punching a new airport ID into a GPS, and coming up with a *plan*.
Though, admittedly, in your case perhaps there is no difference, since your
plan never seems to go beyond that anyway.

[...]
You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.

Well, first of all, I already pointed out that you really need to be closer
than one hour to the nearest fuel. But even so, I find myself an hour from
the nearest fuel on a reasonably regular basis. It's not hard, flying
around the west.

Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding
your fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well,
but cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of
information than are available is bad.

Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
that is spelled) as well.

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.

There is NOTHING more reliable than seeing out the window of the airplane
and knowing with 100% certainty how the picture out the window matches the
image on your chart. Nothing.

[...]
Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before
you take off?

Yes, of course I do. I verify that they have fuel, their hours of
operation, their methods of payment, and if they have pilots on staff around
when I call, I'll even ask about any "local knowledge" that might be useful
to a transient pilot with respect to my arrival and subsequent departure.

It's not even that hard to find stories of pilots who have arrived at an
airport, expecting to take on fuel, only to discover some problem.

Of course, even calling ahead isn't fail-safe. For example, on a recent
flight from Medford, OR to Fort Collins, CO, I stopped for fuel in Idaho. I
had called ahead to make sure they had fuel and were going to be there, but
when I arrived, they had some sort of technical issue with their credit-card
system. We worked something out, but had they known of the problem before I
took off, I probably would have landed somewhere else.

I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a restaurant and
asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.

It's more like calling a restaurant and asking them if they have food before
you come in for dinner, if you are going to expire from hunger if no food is
available there. In reality, your analogy sucks because a) food is almost
never a critical resource for survival for folks like us, and b) if there's
one restaurant, there is almost always another across the street.

With fuel, especially when flying at the limits of endurance for one's
aircraft, or when flying in very sparsely settled areas such as exist here
in the west, you may only get one chance for fuel, especially if you apply
the kind of "planning" to your flight that you apparently do.

[...]
How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
cross-checking?

I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and
see what town it is.

How do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways, VORs, NDBs,
intersections. All easily done in the air.

Again, how do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

In any case, your argument relies heavily on the Garmin 430 GPS you have
installed. Your original question said NOTHING about the kind of equipment
one might be using, and as common as GPS is becoming, nice moving map GPS
receivers such as the 430 are hardly ubiquitous.

Even if I had a 430 in my plane, I would plan my flights with more detail
than you do. But I hardly think it's useful for you to equivocate on your
original question by bringing in new elements to it. If you had asked "does
anyone with a 430 still plan their flights?" I would not have even bothered
to answer.

Pete

Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going more
than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts your
liberty to fly where you want. I am all for flight plans, flight following,
continuous radio contact and business-like conduct for most flights, even VFR
- but when the weather's beautiful, and you're only going 100nm or so, of
route that you know like the back of your hand, it's a bit of a shame not to
be able to take your time, check something out, show someone who's never been
up before something special - even land somewhere else if you feel like it.
Under these conditions, the only use for a flight plan is to assist SAR.
Flight following is just as good - and probably better. This is a kink in the
rental system today.

G Faris