On 3/21/2013 3:31 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
I fly in a moderately difficult area with lots of landmarks, lots of woods
and eastern USA scale hills and mountains and very few spots to land out.
Flying into valleys and not having enough space to turn around is a
possibility.

To date, I've relied on eyeballing the glide path to the airport and
getting back close to the pattern with plenty of altitude to spare. I'm a
navigational newbie.

I've just started getting into the approach of calculating in advance "safe
altitudes" at landmarks; altitudes that guarantee a glide to the pattern at
best L/D with a large safety margin. My plan is to study the chart and
topo maps in advance, make a list of safe altitudes and landmarks (maybe on
a 3X5 card) then practice picking out landmarks and observing altitude.
Plan and execute some mini-tasks around the airport with altitude targets.
I'm using one of the classic books that talks about how to do this. In
short, develop navigational skills without a digital PNA. Once I have
better "navigational sense" I will learn to use a PNA. I'll stand off or
stay well above any valleys where I might have trouble turning around.

As I get into this and realize the difficulty and complexity of navigating
on paper, I'm wondering whether my traditional paper-based approach is
dumb. Would it make more sense to start using a PNA sooner rather than
later? I'm not suggesting that I rely blindly on the PNA, more like a
combination of traditional methods with the PNA.

Is it smart or dumb to delay using a PNA for a season?

Are there any books that teach navigation with a combination PNA and paper
based approach?

I can't speak to any 1st-hand experience with a computer (of any sort other
than my built-in Mark I Gray Matter) in a glider cockpit, but your described
approach seems fundamentally sound as I read it.

No matter when you begin using a PNA, it won't improve your existing
decision-making skills one iota, though you might imagine/hope/believe it does.

Read everything you can. Pick every brain you can. (Both are fun to do.) If
you don't understand something from someone, keep asking 'em "Why do you
say/claim that?" until you're satisfied you truly comprehend their
reasoning...with which you may not agree.

Here's a link to an old article; nothing glider related in it needs updating,
though it was written over 20 years ago.
http://soarboulder.org/stories/kissing-tips-2

XC isn't fundamentally difficult from a conceptual standpoint. Nor need it be
fundamentally any riskier than your first solo, if approached sensibly, by
which I mean never lose sight of the fact the only certainty related to XC is
that you WILL be returning to earth. Fly accordionly, and it will be a hugely
fun, exhilarating, life-altering (in the good sense) blast!

HTH...

Bob W.

P.S. In my 1-26, I used 3 miles/1000' for planning purposes. In my 15-meter
glass and G-103 flying I used 5 miles/1000'. I also "proved" (to my
satisfaction, in local flying) those values were conservative in any
conditions I'd likely be going XC BEFORE I ever went XC, then religiously
checked how I was doing if lowish-ground clearance and/or prudence suggested I
needed to be checking. Five mile diameter rings/arcs drawn on paper charts
were my guide. No cheating allowed...IOW, you have to be directly abeam/atop
some landmark to claim as achieved, any distance based on using said landmark.

P.P.S. Eventually you WILL be flying XC and NOT be making good your assumed
glide ratio. No problem, so long as: 1) you always have a Plan B (and maybe
Plan C or D) in hand; and 2) you're aware of the fact you're doing worse than
you hoped! It goes without saying - or should, ha ha! - you IMplement a backup
plan sooner rather than later, should there be the merest hint of doubt in
your mind as to the validity of Plan A.