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.

On Jun 27, 3:09*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

There's no distinction between simulation and real flight in this context..

Yes there is. ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
world. But you wouldn't know this since you don't fly in the real
system

writes:

Yep, as long as you keep pushing that button to give you a view out the
side windows.

In this case I was using radio navigation.

However the point was that if you had ever done any actual flying you would
know how trivial the problem is.

Odd that I receive so few answers to such a trivial question, then.

writes:

Yes there is. ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
world.

The controller was a real person. What did he do that was unrealistic?

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Yep, as long as you keep pushing that button to give you a view out the
side windows.

In this case I was using radio navigation.

Which in this case is a less than optimal method.

However the point was that if you had ever done any actual flying you would
know how trivial the problem is.

Odd that I receive so few answers to such a trivial question, then.

I answered it almost immediately.

How many times do you need to hear the same answer?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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, 5:51*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Yes there is. *ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
world.

The controller was a real person. What did he do that was unrealistic?

If you don't know this, then obviously my answer doesn't mean a
thing. Oh I forgot, I fly in the real ATC system.

I will give you a hint. You were playing in simulated VFR conditions.

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.

writes:

... obviously my answer doesn't mean a thing.

Unfortunately, I agree.