If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
On Jun 30, 4:56*am, brian whatcott wrote:
I think you do well to be scared. A flight over water means that the worst moment is half way. It is then that given the option, you should be high enough to glide ashore. * *A flight required to stay low for a 57 mile trip had better have at least a lifejacket and an ELT or some such. I don't know about scared but I certainly know about being prepared when over water. Then the only 'where I was' was the Flight Plan and radio and floatation gear an inflatable life vest. Accompanied by automatic rough as I got further from land. Briefing friends/pax before any cross Cook Strait flight always brought it home to me the picture the media has of anything smaller than a B747 being a 'small' and therefore inherently dangerous machine to 'brave the elements in' |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
"a" wrote in message ... On Jun 29, 1:24 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote: Re the Bahamas: some time ago I decided to go from Grand Bahama Island to Nassau. While en route was told to delay my arrival time by a half hour or 45 minutes because of thunderstorms. It was blue skies where we were, and just to the side was an island with a dirt strip that looked really inviting. I dragged the strip -- 500 feet, dirty, and it looked like a great place to stop for a while. "OK" I told my pax, "let's do that". I got back to about 900 feet, flew a downwind, base, turned onto final, and we saw some people come out to the runway: probably only two or three, but at the time it looked like an army because they were all carrying long guns. I decided the message was, this was a very private airstrip. Throttle forward, gear and flaps up, and we got out of there pretty quickly. Then flew in circles for a half hour. Same trip after clearing customs in as I remember Hollywood FL, I had finished a weather briefing and was approached by a guy who asked if I was flying to Boston. He overheard part of the briefing. I told that was my plan. He told me he had two hundred pounds of delicate electronics he needed to get to Boston, and if I could hang around for an hour he'd get them into my airplane. Then, with a wink, he said if I took them I could keep a couple of pounds for myself. I was wheels up very soon after that. Electronics by the pound: interesting idea, isn't it? You know, it's really a share that I don't have the talent as a writer; because this is one of those locations with oodles of really first rate material for a novelist! But, alas, I just don't have what it takes. Peter |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
On Jun 26, 12:59*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim: The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF. There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north. What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ? I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've gone further than I actually have. Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at Casa Grande. This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this route under these conditions? Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments despite being VFR in VMC. (If I had been using pilotage, I would have simply followed Interstate 10, which practically leads to the ramp, but I deliberately avoided looking for the highway.) I conducted the flight mostly at 3500 feet, although I suppose that's not very important here. I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain. You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a navigation log before your flight. Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight. I think Flight Simulator has this function(?), but you should make it by hand, if you've never done it, to help understand how it works. With the Nav log, you wouldn't try to "...judge my distance from the VOR..." by looking for it; you'd know approximately when you were going to cross it by looking at your clock. I don't think I would have followed V105 in this case, I would've just followed the appropriate radial outbound from PXR VOR, followed my position using the clock and my nav log, checked my position about midway by switching my VOR momentarily to either of the neighboring VORs, then watched the clock again to make sure I didn't fly past the airport. But the key to all that is the nav log you make before your flight. All the times and positions of the key points, including the midway waypoint is on the log, then you just follow along. If your planned waypoint doesn't appear at the proper time, then you take measures to reestablish your position. By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Navigation strategy on a short flight
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Navigation flight planning during training | Andrew Sarangan | Piloting | 52 | March 21st 07 05:49 PM |
The Strategy For Iraq! | W. D. Allen | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 23rd 06 09:30 PM |
"Strategy and Air Power" - AEI | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 4th 05 04:01 PM |
New strategy in fighting AL-Queda | Leadfoot | Naval Aviation | 2 | September 1st 03 12:40 AM |
New strategy in fighting AL-Queda | Leadfoot | Military Aviation | 0 | August 29th 03 02:26 AM |