Navigation strategy on a short flight

In article ,
says...


OK, thanks. I guess I might have been complicating the navigation more than
necessary. Too many IFR flights, perhaps.


Of course it couldn’t be related to the fact that you never learned how to
do it in the first place.

You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
to know what your intentions are. This should be an easy question, because
if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
flight as planned. If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
requests an anticipated waypoint crossing. If you knew what you were doing
you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are. You
say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you still manage
to be way behind it.

Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
as you find them tedious and boring. Well, some things in this world are
just 'made right'. The morning shimmer over the Cordillera of the Andes,
seen from FL210 is one of them. The fact that you will never be at the
controls of any real airplane is another.

VOR-DME writes:

You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
to know what your intentions are.

Yes, the controller asked me two or three times. He thought I had returned to
a downwind for my departure runway because I turned east, and I explained that
I was just joining a radial from the VOR to go towards my destination. Later,
when I abruptly turned east again to switch to the 148 radial, he asked my
intentions again, probably thinking I was lost (kinda sorta true).

Usually, though, ATC doesn't ask many questions when I have FF, particularly
when I'm outside a Class B.

This should be an easy question, because
if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
flight as planned.

Yes.

If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
requests an anticipated waypoint crossing.

I'm unaccustomed to the extremely slow speed of a 152, and I usually don't
keep much of a log.

If you knew what you were doing
you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are.

Yes. That's why I asked about it. I only count one useful answer so far.

You say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you
still manage to be way behind it.

I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
same thing.

Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
as you find them tedious and boring.

I find some things tedious and boring, others not. It's a risk-benefit
analysis. Keeping a log while praticing in the pattern seems unwarranted to
me, for example. Keeping a log while flying at night over mountains makes
perfect sense, although I don't like to interrupt my scan any more than
necessary.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
VOR-DME writes:

You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
to know what your intentions are.

Yes, the controller asked me two or three times. He thought I had returned to
a downwind for my departure runway because I turned east, and I explained that
I was just joining a radial from the VOR to go towards my destination. Later,
when I abruptly turned east again to switch to the 148 radial, he asked my
intentions again, probably thinking I was lost (kinda sorta true).

Usually, though, ATC doesn't ask many questions when I have FF, particularly
when I'm outside a Class B.

This should be an easy question, because
if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
flight as planned.

Yes.

If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
requests an anticipated waypoint crossing.

I'm unaccustomed to the extremely slow speed of a 152, and I usually don't
keep much of a log.

If you knew what you were doing
you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are.

Yes. That's why I asked about it. I only count one useful answer so far.

You say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you
still manage to be way behind it.

I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
same thing.

Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
as you find them tedious and boring.

I find some things tedious and boring, others not. It's a risk-benefit
analysis. Keeping a log while praticing in the pattern seems unwarranted to
me, for example. Keeping a log while flying at night over mountains makes
perfect sense, although I don't like to interrupt my scan any more than
necessary.

You haven't a clue what "log" is being discussed, how you generate one, how
you use one, or what its purpose is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 27, 5:58*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
same thing.

YES IT IS.

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?

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.