what flight planning software do you use?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:41:26 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

I'm sitting wondering if the reason it takes you so long to plan a 1000 NM
XC without a computer is because you are so dependent on your flight
planning software.

You don't understand it do you? There is no way you can call every
airport within 30 miles of your planned fuel stop and get prices quickly.
There is no way you can call each FSS along the path and get a briefing
quickly. Do them both and you'll spend more time on the phone than it
takes to plan the flight.

To obey the FAR's requires you to become familar with your route of
flight. You can't do it by calling only your local FSS and consulting the
charts in front of you. You require more information than that, and you
are not obtaining it according to your statements of not calling FSS's
along the way. You're lucky you haven't been shot down in some TFR so far
based on your lack of calls to FSS's.

Maybe you're wealthy and don't care about fuel pricing, maybe you feel
lucky and don't think you'll ever get caught in a TFR. Well, I'm not
rich, and I don't want to be caught in a TFR so I take extra long to
VERIFY ALL the information pertaining to my flight, like the FAR's require
for each flight.

That is why I take a little longer than you, I FOLLOW WHAT THE FAR's
REQUIRE A PILOT TO DO. I don't take half a day to plan a long cross
country, that was an example given. I suppose you've never planned a
flight and then called FSS and discovered you can't fly it as planned?
Thus requiring more planning? How lucky of you. I suppose you've never
planned a flight only to have a TFR get in the way causing a replan.

You just don't seem to get it. Flight planning is not as simple as it
used to be if you care about things. There are more steps to it now. If
you don't think TFR's are an issue, then why does AOPA send out emails to
pilots in states with them to help them stay out of trouble? I suppose
those emails are to members on the Internet.

What I have said, and will say again, software speeds up the process of
discovering problems with your flight plan. WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT
THROUGH YOUR HEAD?

In a previous article, "Matthew P. Cummings" said:
There is no way you can call each FSS along the path and get a briefing
quickly. Do them both and you'll spend more time on the phone than it

Why do people keep saying this? When I call the local FSS, they give me a
full briefing all the way to my destination. I don't have to call all the
FSSes along the way - even when I fly to Canada, they give me that info as
well, although they also give me the "International Cautionary Briefing"
telling me I have to call Canadian FSS to be absolutely sure.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history... with the possible exception of handguns and tequila."
- Mitch Ratcliffe

Matthew,

I have been following this thread with interest, as I have done planning
both manually and with the computer.

Matthew P. Cummings wrote:

You don't understand it do you? There is no way you can call every
airport within 30 miles of your planned fuel stop and get prices quickly.
There is no way you can call each FSS along the path and get a briefing
quickly. Do them both and you'll spend more time on the phone than it
takes to plan the flight.

Flight planning software is not needed above. A quick stop at
airnav.com will give you the relevant information for fuel prices.

To obey the FAR's requires you to become familar with your route of
flight.

I agree with this statement.

You can't do it by calling only your local FSS and consulting the charts in front of
you.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. You mentioned TFRs. Most
if not all TFR's are posted on DUATS and FSS also would be knowledgeable
on TFRs. Specifically presidential TFR's are not generally "popped up"
out of the blue. Therefore the local FSS should have the relevant
information. If another TFR came up, lets say due to a catastrophy
happened while you were in route, you would get busted sorta like the
pipe line person in NJ busting the presidential motorcade TFR if I
recall. And that pipeline person did get a briefing from FSS. So, it
happens, but all the preparation in the world would not prevent
incidents like this.

are not obtaining it according to your statements of not calling FSS's
along the way. You're lucky you haven't been shot down in some TFR so far
based on your lack of calls to FSS's.

I am a VFR only pilot at this time, and for my "long" cross countries, I
get flight following. I have never called FSS enroute other then to
give PIREPS. My only call to FSS is immediately prior to departure when
I file my plan and ask for a standard briefing. If I get on DUATS, I
will ask for an abreviated briefing. I have called flight watch enroute
as weather in the deep south sometimes trips up even the best of
briefers.

Maybe you're wealthy and don't care about fuel pricing, maybe you feel
lucky and don't think you'll ever get caught in a TFR. Well, I'm not
rich, and I don't want to be caught in a TFR so I take extra long to
VERIFY ALL the information pertaining to my flight, like the FAR's require
for each flight.

Checking DUATs, and calling my local FSS does meet the FARs requirement
in verifying all information pertaining to a flight. The briefer
provides NOTAMs for my departure and destination airport. No
specialized software is needed and I have only made one phone call.

What I have said, and will say again, software speeds up the process of
discovering problems with your flight plan.

I will agree with this ONLY in that software will speed up discovering
problems with terrain and airspace issues in your flight plan. Software
WILL NOT speed up discovering TFR's due to the dynamic nature of TFRs.

I myself, break out the sectionals, use the plotter to make a line from
point A to B, then due a manual checkpoint chart, and use DUAT's flight
planner to supplement my numbers I put on the flight planning chart. On
my flight planning sheets, I put in all the VOR's I pass, so I can dial
in the from radial on the VOR frequency. This locates me pretty much
exactly where I am on the line I drew on the sectional and increase my
situational awareness. I use my GPS as a supplement to this as I want
my eyes OUTSIDE the cockpit.

Using software does not always get you as intimately familiar with your
flight plan as good as just studying the line you drew on your sectional
maps.

Allen

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
You don't understand it do you?

I think I already made it clear that I don't understand "it". Assuming by
"it" you mean "why you feel that using flight planning software is a
necessity".

There is no way you can call every
airport within 30 miles of your planned fuel stop and get prices quickly.

First of all, what makes you say "there is no way" for me to call every
airport within 30 miles of my planned fuel stop and get prices quickly.
Just how slow do you think my telephone is? Beyond that, you cannot rely on
fuel information obtained online anyway.

But even assuming I cannot do that, why should I bother? Cost of fuel is
such a tiny portion of the total cost of the trip and any difference in fuel
price even smaller, and I find much more value in landing at an airport that
is convenient, rather than choosing one that is cheaper. If there are a few
airports near each other that it might make sense to check fuel prices, it
is a simple enough matter to phone the FBOs and ask them what their prices
are. Since I'm phoning them anyway, just to verify hours and availability
(you DO do that for all of your cross-countries, don't you?) it's not really
a hassle to also find out the fuel prices.

There is no way you can call each FSS along the path and get a briefing
quickly. Do them both and you'll spend more time on the phone than it
takes to plan the flight.

A single leg, at the most, takes me from one FSS's jurisdiction to another.
But more importantly, ALL FSS's can give me exactly the same information,
except for local NOTAMs. And it only takes one extra phone call to obtain
those.

I have NEVER spent more time on the phone than I spend planning. Maybe I
just talk faster than you. I'm not sure why you perceive it as such a
hassle, but I assure you that for me, it's not.

By the way, since you are a stickler for getting ALL information, I assume
that even after you get your software briefing, you contact the local FSS
for your destination. After all, the software can only give you the
numbers. Only a human briefer can educate you regarding local conditions
and weather patterns.

[...] You're lucky you haven't been shot down in some TFR so far
based on your lack of calls to FSS's.

Not that you'd be correct either way, but...you mean that I'm lucky I
haven't had my certificate suspended. No pilot in the US has ever been shot
down as a result of busting a TFR.

That is why I take a little longer than you, I FOLLOW WHAT THE FAR's
REQUIRE A PILOT TO DO.

Now I'm confused. You started out claiming that you took LESS time than me.
Now you say you take longer? I'd really appreciate it if you'd pick a story
and stick with it.

I don't take half a day to plan a long cross
country, that was an example given.

Oh, sorry. I didn't know we were playing by those rules. In that case, I
present as my example, the complete planned flight, incorporating literally
ALL available information, and having taken just under a minute to finish.
After all, by the logic you're using, my example need not have any relevance
to reality.

I suppose you've never planned a
flight and then called FSS and discovered you can't fly it as planned?

Happens all the time. So what? My initial planning includes contingencies
anyway, so all that information from an FSS will do is cause me to select a
contingency. This is no different than unexpected situations coming up in
flight. Surely you can agree that time is even more at a premium while in
flight and needing to make a timely decision. Surely you are not trying to
claim that you are sitting up there, behind the yoke, working on your laptop
on your updated flight plan when something comes up that requires a change.

[...] If you don't think TFR's are an issue

I never said TFR's aren't an issue. Quit putting words into my mouth.

What I have said, and will say again, software speeds up the process of
discovering problems with your flight plan. WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT
THROUGH YOUR HEAD?

Dude. You need a chill pill. You're the one who started out telling the
rest of us why we HAVE to be using flight planning software. I have no
interest in dissuading you from using flight planning software, and stated
exactly that right up front. Just get off your high horse and quit
insisting that those of us that don't use flight planning software are
somehow neglecting our responsibilities as PIC.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Since you mention the TFRs, that is one of my major gripes about
FliteStar.
It does not plot the TFRs. This is ridiculous, considering what Jeppesen
thinks this program is worth. Almost every flight planning program plots
the
TFRs. Even some of the free ones do this. Why the heck can't FliteStar do
it?

Why don't you ask them, though I've noticed they're much less receptive to
customer feedback lately than they've been in earlier years.

Tom

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| Since you mention the TFRs, that is one of my major gripes about
| FliteStar.
| It does not plot the TFRs. This is ridiculous, considering what Jeppesen
| thinks this program is worth. Almost every flight planning program plots
| the
| TFRs. Even some of the free ones do this. Why the heck can't FliteStar
do
| it?
|
| Why don't you ask them, though I've noticed they're much less receptive to
| customer feedback lately than they've been in earlier years.

Actually, I did ask them:



Morning,

When version 9.0 comes out. The TFR's are actually created in part by the
FAA on a specific tool that we created for them. the outlook is for the next
month or two to release v9.0.

-Scott @ Jepp Tech Spprt









To: PcTechSupport

cc: (bcc: Scott Kiefer/Jeppesen/TMC)

Subject: PC Technical Support





Name: Christopher Campbell

Feedback: complaint

Respond to Customer: yes

Message: When are we going to be able to see plotted TFRs in FliteStar?

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:03:42 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

"it" you mean "why you feel that using flight planning software is a
necessity".

I don't believe it is for those who fear it, or can't afford it. For
those of us who have it, I believe we should use it. I believe if more
used it there would be fewer problems. Ever meet somebody who run out of
fuel due to an error? I did, landed in the field next to my house.
Fortunately he didn't damage the plane. Who can say for sure if the
computer would have helped, I think it might have. We put gas in the
plane, pushed him to the road and he flew to the airport 3 miles away.

Just how slow do you think my telephone is? Beyond that, you cannot rely on
fuel information obtained online anyway.

I think voice is slower than computer, especially when you have to look up
the phone number. The other guy said airnav.com shows the data, I already
posted that my software uses airnav as a basis for airport information
regarding fuel pricing. Since you have never used my software you don't
understand why it's easier. Using airnav you have to enter the airport
id. My software shows a real chart with my flight path overlaid. I click
on an airport and get all the information about it without having to type
anything. So it's easier. Just because I use software does not mean I
don't know what that chart looks like, the screen is 100% exactly like a
chart, it is a chart, including WAC, SAC, TAC, and IFR enroute charts,
though I'm not IFR and don't use them much. If there's an error on the
paper chart, it's on my electronic chart because they are from the same
source, the colors are the same. The only thing missing are the rips that
happen after you fold the chart 3 times.

But more importantly, ALL FSS's can give me exactly the same information,

I believe this is supposed to be how it works, but regardless of that I
have been told to call other FSS's on a regular basis. I have had the
local FSS not tell me of a TFR that existed that my software pointed out
in it's briefing. I know how things are supposed to work, and I know how
they really work. I suspect that it has to do with their data entry being
in error, but I don't know for sure.

numbers. Only a human briefer can educate you regarding local conditions
and weather patterns.

I agree, and as I said I talk to them as well for their take on things,
read back a couple posts and you'll see I said that.

exactly that right up front. Just get off your high horse and quit
insisting that those of us that don't use flight planning software are
somehow neglecting our responsibilities as PIC.

You have misunderstood from the very beginning and for some reason thought
I meant you personally, I did not, I said so several times that this was
not directed towards you. You twist everything around so that it pertains
to yourself, it does not. You don't even have a vested interest in this
thread and for some reason have decided to tell those of us who use it
that doing manually is best. You're no different than I, you have your
point of view and I mine. I would not post my ideas in a different thread
because then it would apply to everybody. In this thread with it's
heading, only pilots who use software are answering. Or so I shall assume
because that's the point of the thread. It is not a manual vs electronic
thread.

This thread should not even interest you since you obviously believe
anybody who uses such software is a dolt and can't do it the manual way.
You don't use it, so how can you answer the question "What flight planning
software do you use?". You can't, you have no valid input in that regards
since you don't use software. Your only input is that software is not
needed and you should be able to do it manually. I would agree with that
statement as basically sound, but it does not answer the question this
thread was based on.

You belong to the old club, I to the new club. You and I will never see
eye to eye on software to make the job easier as you believe it's easy
enough as is. I agree it's not hard to do it manually, but I know for a
fact I can get the same information without human error introduced faster
by using the computer. I use a hybrid of the two because I do not
completely trust either human or computer when it comes to my life.

If you consider the fact that I use both, then you will begin to see where
you have been confused by my seeming inconsistencies. They're not because
I use both ways all the time. When I plan a flight on my computer it's no
different than how I would do it on paper. For a long trip I get out a
WAC and figure a path. Then I transfer it to charts, electronic charts
and then I save it. I then get a briefing and compare the results to my
expected results and modify accordingly. This is done using charts, but
their electronic. They look the same, contain the same info. The only
difference is that I can access information about that route
electronically and play what if's faster. I do not let the computer
choose my route based on anything, I plan it out using charts just like
you do, but my charts are in a digital format. If your paper chart had a
missing dot on the letter I, then so too would mine.

The computer does not remove me from planning, I use exactly the same
steps you do, but my steps are done first via computer and then I copy by
hand the plan and alternates to my paper chart which I use in the plane.

We differ in that I believe people should use it if they can. I have said
I don't expect them to go out and buy it, but if they have it they need to
use it.

Anyhow, you and I have hijacked this thread long enough, it's not supposed
to be a manual vs electronic planning thread. It's supposed to answer the
question of what flight planning software do you use. I have answered
that in a previous posting.

My concession to you is that I agree pilots should be able to obtain the
same information manually. I will continue to get it electronically and
verify and expound via abbreviated briefings.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
"it" you mean "why you feel that using flight planning software is a
necessity".

I don't believe it is for those who fear it, or can't afford it.

By definition, if you can qualify the need to have the tool by whether a
person is afraid of it (what an odd qualification) or whether they can
afford it, it cannot possibly be a "necessity". Fuel in the airplane,
that's a necessity. A weather briefing of some sort, that's a necessity.
Flight planning software, not a necessity, not for anyone.

I think voice is slower than computer, especially when you have to look up
the phone number. The other guy said airnav.com shows the data, I already
posted that my software uses airnav as a basis for airport information
regarding fuel pricing.

But neither your software nor Airnav has information that is guaranteed to
be accurate or complete. You are falling into the same trap many people who
use technology-based solutions do, by thinking that just because it's on a
computer, the information is somehow better. Just because the fuel price is
displayed in pixels on your computer screen, that doesn't mean that the
information is correct.

Beyond that, using the computer does not get you out of having to look up
the phone number and calling the FBO, to ensure that they are going to be
open and have fuel available for you. You should have that conversation
with any FBO where you plan a stop, if not the alternates as well.

[...] You don't even have a vested interest in this
thread and for some reason have decided to tell those of us who use it
that doing manually is best.

Again, you need to quit putting words into my mouth. I have NOT ONCE made a
judgment about which method of flight planning is "best". The rest of your
post continues in similar fashion, claiming that I am somehow objecting to
the use of flight planning software, even though I have done nothing of the
sort.

Pete

Well, but this calculation by hand (which is not 100%) is all the
indication I need! :-) Your statement, that you don't use any flight
planning software, but just by hand (I'm assuming you still use an E6B),
is just as valuable to me. I was looking for both positives and negatives.

Thanks for the replies,
Sridhar

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...


He also asked how many people use flight planning software. Negative
responses provide information to that part of the request.



No they don't.

That's like saying "how many apples are in that bowl", and thinking that
being told how many apples aren't in that bowl somehow answers the question.

Unless you have a 100% response rate from all pilots AND know exactly how
many pilots you're talking about, negative answers do nothing to answer the
question.

Pete

vincent p. norris wrote:

I wonder what people mean, today, when they say "E-6B." Are they
talking about the old faithful hand-powered "whizz-wheel," or one of
those outrageously priced battery-powered jobs?


The whizzer, of course (atleast I do).

With a little experience, calculating-- or really, guesstimating--
wind correction angle (unless one is planning to cross the Atlantic
Ocean) requires nothing more than a recollection of high-school trig.

Recall, for example, the characteristics of a 60-30 right triangle.
That will give you the WCA for the stiffest crosswind you are ever
likely to encounter. Interpolation will give you the WCA for lighter
winds, with sufficient accuracy for flying two- or three-hour legs in
a typical GA airplane, using pilotage to fine tune the heading.



Yeah, the one time when my trig came in handy is when I was figuring out
the equations for creating an excel (and javascript) spreadsheet for the
navigation log.