Navigation strategy on a short flight

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.

On Jul 3, 8:40*am, FlyCherokee wrote:

For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
job in this area.

For flight planning and getting familiar with IFR procedures,
absolutely.

For flying a real plane absolutely NOT.

Mx thinks he can go from MSFS to a real plane when he says

Quoting Mx below
My failure or success in the sim should accurately
mirror what my result in real life would be.

He is sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
REAL PLANE.

writes:

He is sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
REAL PLANE.

That depends on the situation. In many simulation scenarios, your experience
in the simulation precisely mirrors what it would be in real life. In
particular, this means that if you make a foolish mistake in the simulated
flight and kill yourself, you would also be dead in real life ... you cannot
claim that some error in the simulation is responsible for the crash.

I pity real-world pilots who continually dismiss simulation. They do
themselves a disservice. Since the prevent themselves from learning from
mistakes in a simulator, the only way they can learn from mistakes is in a
real airplane--and if the mistake leads to impact with terrain, learning from
it at that point is too late.

FlyCherokee writes:

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)

Point taken. Does this depend on the type of terrain or do you apply it as a
universal rule? Or do you relate it to the number of suitable airfields within
range?

I had not given engine failure much thought. Most of this comes from the
complacency that results when one knows that the engine cannot fail (in a sim,
failures occur only if the sim has been set to allow them). Here again, I note
that if I had stuck to my original filed altitude, I'd have about eight miles
of gliding range, which, along my originally filed route, would keep me within
range of an airfield for the entire flight. So I have another reason not to
cut corners on the altitude. The terrain is moderately smooth in the area and
flat spots for an emergency landing probably wouldn't be too hard to find from
any position along the original route, but I do not relish the thought of
crashing through sagebrush on desert dirt.

I note that had I taken the 148 radial directly, I'd be further away from
suitable airfields (although that was not something that I had noticed or
taken into consideration during flight planning).

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.

I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
busy.

Anyway, it is possible to become spooked during a simulation, too, if you are
able to suspend disbelief and use a bit of imagination. If you aren't,
simulation probably won't be enjoyable and won't provide much in the way of
learning or useful experience.

On occasions when I have been scared by a simulation, it has been when I got
into trouble or crashed because of some mistake I made. The behavior of the
sim was exactly like real life within the context of the mistake, and it
occurred to me that if I had made the same mistake in real life, I'd be dead,
which is a sobering thought. The incident that sticks in my mind was a flight
during which I had become just a bit too complacent, allowing me to hit the
side of a hill not long after takeoff (at night). All I saw was some trees and
bushes suddenly right ahead of me, and then boom. In the postmortem analysis I
saw what I had done wrong, but it significantly upset me because it was clear
that there was no error in the simulation that I could use to pretend that it
wasn't my fault--in real life, I would have hit that hill just as surely as I
did in the sim, and for exactly the same reasons. The sim did a superb job of
simulating my demise.

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!

You make it sound like quite an ordeal. I hope you are describing a worst-case
scenario.

If I were flying for real, probably one of my first investments would be an
electronic flight bag, in order to eliminate some of that clutter and
confusion. Ideally an EFB that I could write on would be great (but I don't
think such exists at the moment).

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.

I'll try some exercises with a clock. Up to now, I've only very rarely used
timing for navigation, mostly in holds. Usually the aircraft is equipped well
enough to make it unnecessary, with the exception of the C152.

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.

I have an E6B, but it's very awkward to use. I have two little programs for my
PDA that also perform calculations, but that's a bit awkward, too. But I guess
I can try them again.

Use ground features for waypoints, e.g., crossing rivers, lakes,
highways, etc.

I usually do okay with pilotage. The sim does not have breathtaking scenery,
but the developers included most of the features you need to relate the
terrain outside to the charts, making pilotage perfectly practical. If you see
a highway and some power lines on the charts, you'll see them in the sim, too.
Rivers rarely look as they do in real life, but you can still spot them and
relate them to the charts.

If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints.

If I have two VOR receivers! My pokey little C152 has but one.

If none of those, then I would chart a different course so that I
had something to verify my position.

I've done this in the past for pure pilotage. It seems to work pretty well.

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.

But if you need to know winds aloft (hence ground speed) to find your first
waypoint ...

So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? The
pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.

For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
job in this area.

And with a few add-ons, you can improve it by at least an order of magnitude
or better. Some flight controls are a good investment, and payware add-on
aircraft are very important, since the default aircraft involve many
deliberate compromises in order to reach a wider market.

Hi,


In article ,
wrote:
If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints.

If I have two VOR receivers! My pokey little C152 has but one.

You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.

Andy

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
busy.

I posted you a link to some PDF ones months ago, which you chose to ignore
as you couldn't be bothered with such useless paperwork.

Since you haven't a clue how they are used, saying you will make your own
is laughable.

They are "very busy" because there is a lot of information that has to go
on them and the well formatted ones will print on standard paper and fold
up conviently to fit a knee board. Real airplanes don't have a table in the
cockpit.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? The
pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.

Aviationweather.gov is a good start. Here, for example, are winds aloft
forecast for PHX and others in the region:

http://aviationweather.gov/products/...e&fint=06&lvl=
lo

You can also get point sounding forecasts from NOAA's ARL:

http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/READYcmet.php

Put "PHX" into the box there and then get a sounding forecast with the
12km NAM model, and pick the Javascript animation type.

In my experience these are highly accurate up to a day in advance, and
reasonably accurate up to two days in advance.

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

On Jul 4, 11:44*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Point taken. Does this depend on the type of terrain or do you apply it as a
universal rule? Or do you relate it to the number of suitable airfields within
range?

I had not given engine failure much thought. Most of this comes from the
complacency that results when one knows that the engine cannot fail (in a sim,
failures occur only if the sim has been set to allow them). Here again, I note
that if I had stuck to my original filed altitude, I'd have about eight miles
of gliding range, which, along my originally filed route, would keep me within
range of an airfield for the entire flight. So I have another reason not to
cut corners on the altitude. The terrain is moderately smooth in the area and
flat spots for an emergency landing probably wouldn't be too hard to find from
any position along the original route, but I do not relish the thought of
crashing through sagebrush on desert dirt.

I note that had I taken the 148 radial directly, I'd be further away from
suitable airfields (although that was not something that I had noticed or
taken into consideration during flight planning).

I like about 3000 AGL over hospitable terrain (flat, plenty of fields
to land in, etc.). Over mountains, cities, etc, I'd be happier
higher, and I don't fly over water outside of gliding range to land.
I usually don't think at all about being near airports for
emergencies, there is usually plenty of open space beneath me to land
on.

Don't count on the published glide ratio to estimate your glide
distance. You need to save some altitude for what you lose during the
initial moments when you're getting yourself together, acknowledging a
failure, and establishing the glide, then allow some for maneuvering
when your chosen landing spot starts looking not-so-good when you get
closer to it, then allow for some more altitude to maneuver for the
actual landing. I use 1 NM max per 1000 ft of altitude when I
practice, preferably less. 1 NM per 1000 ft also just happens to be
how far I can see over the cowling when in normal cruise attitude.


I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
busy.

If I'm remembering it correctly, the one in Flight Simulator is good
enough.


You make it sound like quite an ordeal. I hope you are describing a worst-case
scenario.

Yes, usually you get only one thing at a time, but my point was that
it's very small in the airplane, but you'll still have enough room to
work on your log, you just strap a clipboard to your leg, and use that
for a desk.

If I were flying for real, probably one of my first investments would be an
electronic flight bag, in order to eliminate some of that clutter and
confusion. Ideally an EFB that I could write on would be great (but I don't
think such exists at the moment).

The electronic aides are becoming very popular, but I'm a dinosaur and
like paper charts.


I usually do okay with pilotage. The sim does not have breathtaking scenery,
but the developers included most of the features you need to relate the
terrain outside to the charts, making pilotage perfectly practical. If you see
a highway and some power lines on the charts, you'll see them in the sim, too.
Rivers rarely look as they do in real life, but you can still spot them and
relate them to the charts.

I think MS Flight Sim scenery is good enough for pilotage. In real
flying, you want to choose really obvious landmarks for your
waypoints; major rivers, major highway intersections, odd-shaped
lakes, isolated small cities, things that are not easily confused in
the air. These things are all reproduced very well in Flight Sim,
they match up with sectional charts very well.

If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints.

If I have two VOR receivers! *My pokey little C152 has but one.

No, you only need one, you just keep changing frequency to do your
cross checks. I did all my Private training 34 years ago in a 150/152
with only one VOR, it's a little more work, that's all.


But if you need to know winds aloft (hence ground speed) to find your first
waypoint ...

So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? *The
pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.


Yes, the winds aloft predictions and resolution are good enough for
flight planning, have you tried aviationweather.gov?

The general process for planning is to establish your desired course,
then use the predicted winds and your known aircraft performance to
determine your heading angle and predicted ground speed along your
flight. Then take off and fly that heading. When you get near your
first waypoint you use the difference between predicted and actual
time vs. position to make a correction for the rest of the flight. In
practice, it works pretty well, and the predicted winds are good
enough to get you near your first waypoint.