what flight planning software do you use?

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

Hi,

I was wondering about the following:

1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
(VFR and IFR)?
2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
3) how would you rate it?

Thanks!
Sridhar

[Ron Natalie]

"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message ...

> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?

In the past I've typically just used the DynCorp DUAT flight planner. I've
recently started playing around with aeroplanner.

The DUAT planner does most of what I want...piciks a route, fills out the log.
Aeroplanner has the nicety that it provides some AF/D-ish information as well.

[ArtP]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:19:04 -0700, Sridhar Rajagopal
> wrote:


I always use DUATS. If I am going VFR, I also check with
Areoplanner.com. It tells you if your flight plan crosses a TFR of
some sort. I used to file with DUATS but since the DC area became an
ADIZ I now have to file with FSS over the telephone.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sridhar Rajagopal > said:
>1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
>(VFR and IFR)?
>2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
>3) how would you rate it?

Aeroplanner for the preliminary routing, and then CoPilot
(http://xcski.com/~ptomblin/CoPilot) to carry with me.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The only sensible way to estimate the stability of a Windows server
is to power it down and try it out as a step ladder.
-- Robert Crawford

[Mark Manes]

I use Flitesoft for VFR and IFR flight planning. I've been using it for
4 to 5 years now and it does everything I need. Started in a Skylane and
went up to 310 a couple of years ago. I use it for every trip I take even
have it on the laptop for out of town use. I have thought about trying
others but really no reason to. I did use Aeroplanner for a period of
about 6 months but Flightsoft seems more convient to me.

Mark Manes
N28409
WC5I


"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

[David Megginson]

Sridhar Rajagopal > writes:

> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?

I almost always do now. Once in a while I go back to the compass,
ruler, and E6B, just to stay in practice.

> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?

CoPilot on the Palm (free).

> 3) how would you rate it?

Good. I'll give it 8/10 -- it would get higher kind of simple vector
map display. I tried AeroPlanner for a month, and it was a brilliant
site, but I never got comfortable with it.


All the best,


David

[BTIZ]

DUATS online

"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>

[vincent p. norris]

>1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
>(VFR and IFR)?

I'm disappointed to see that not a single responder, so far, has said
he does NOT use software.

I'm not a luddite, but I think using a computer to plan a flight
is..... well, I'm afraid I would offend people if I said what I think.

I've planned, and made, a number of long cross-countries, including
two from PA to Alaska, one around the perimeter of the Lower 48 one
all over the Canadian Maritimes; and the hours I spent poring over the
sectionals, looking for the most desirable routes, the best stopping
places, and so forth, was almost as much fun as making the flights.

In addition to the pure enjoyment, I learned a lot about the
topography of my route by drawing course lines on the charts, and
discovered interesting places I would not have known about had I
depended on a computer to do my thinking for me.

vince norris

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> >1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> >(VFR and IFR)?
>
> I'm disappointed to see that not a single responder, so far, has said
> he does NOT use software.

you just didn't wait long enough.

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Luke]

"Sridhar Rajagopal" wrote:
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?

DUATS with the Cirrus software.

> 3) how would you rate it?

Entirely adequate for my needs and it's free.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Mike Adams]

I use DUATS, either Cirrus, Web-based, or direct via telnet. It works fine and
it's free.

However, I also echo the other responses here, that even with all the
computer tools available, it's still fun to plan a flight manually, draw the
lines on the sectionals, and consider all the options. Earlier this summer I
was stuck with no computer and planned a 600 mile flight with just a plotter
and an E6B, and amazingly it came out accurate to within a few minutes even
without a current wind forecast.

Mike

>"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering about the following:
>>
>> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
>> (VFR and IFR)?
>> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
>> 3) how would you rate it?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Sridhar
>>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

I use FliteStar sometimes. It is very good and it is easy to use and my
laptop computer is handy. However, I usually just plan my flights manually.
I can do a manual flight plan as quickly as I can use any computer program,
but then I can solve problems on an E6B as fast as someone can tell me the
problem orally.

[EDR]

In article >, Sridhar Rajagopal
> wrote:
> I was wondering about the following:
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?


It depend on what aircraft I am flying.
If I will be flying the Champ, I have to stop every two hours.
Depending on the winds, two hours could be 100 sm or it could be 240
sm. I start out with a no-wind cruise speed and plot 150 sm stops on
the map. Then I go to DUATS and plug the fuel stops and destination
into the planner. I look at the wind adjusted leg times and move my
fuel stops accordingly.
Flying any of my clubs C182, PA28-201RT, PA32-300, I still have to plan
for two hour legs (my wife's rule) but with the higher no-wind cruise
speed, the distances are greater, but the planning is still the same.
Start with paper, determine the stops, feed DUATs, adjust the stops.

[lance smith]

I always use DUATS for my xc flights. It's free, on the web, and it
does everything I need. For short local flights I use NOAA's aviation
weather and the DOD NOTAM website.

-lance smith

Sridhar Rajagopal > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar

[Newps]

Not sure how long it has been available but Verizon offers pilot weather
as part of their Get It Now service. You can get Metars, TAF's, radar
pictures and loops, radar loops for a user defined route. The radar
pictures are good enough for VFR flight, you make the call for IFR
flight. Takes about 30 seconds to download a radar loop. I just started
the service, it is $10 per month for unlimited usage. There are three
other weather services available that also offer satellite pictures as
well as radar pictures for less money but they do not have TAF's and Metars.

lance smith wrote:

> I always use DUATS for my xc flights. It's free, on the web, and it
> does everything I need. For short local flights I use NOAA's aviation
> weather and the DOD NOTAM website.
>
> -lance smith
>
> Sridhar Rajagopal > wrote in message >...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I was wondering about the following:
>>
>>1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
>>(VFR and IFR)?
>>2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
>>3) how would you rate it?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Sridhar

[Peter Duniho]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> I'm disappointed to see that not a single responder, so far, has said
> he does NOT use software.

He asked what flight planning software we use. He asked how many people DO
use software.

Why would I answer, given that I don't use any software?

Pete

[Rad]

I use AirPlan.. it's pretty good for what I need it to do.. and above all,
the price is right...

same thing from competitors costs hundreds more.. I can't justify that
difference...

"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:
>
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?

I use an old package called TAU. I think it's not available anymore, and my
database has been out of date for about ten years now, but it's easy to use
and I like it.

George Patterson
The British drink warm beer because they all own Lucas refrigerators.

[Ross Richardson]

I use DUATS. (Cirrus software interface) I like it - it's simple. I have
my plane profiled and I find that I get with in +/- 5 minutes and within
a few gallons of what the flight plan states.


Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar

[Ross Richardson]

Good point. I stated earlier that I use Cirrus DUATS, but I also look at
the provide plan and they look at the charts and see what I want to do.
I have a IFR approved GPS so that allows me some changes. I do not just
blindly use Mapquest either. It makes mistakes also.

"vincent p. norris" wrote:
>
> >1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> >(VFR and IFR)?
>
> I'm disappointed to see that not a single responder, so far, has said
> he does NOT use software.
>
> I'm not a luddite, but I think using a computer to plan a flight
> is..... well, I'm afraid I would offend people if I said what I think.
>
> I've planned, and made, a number of long cross-countries, including
> two from PA to Alaska, one around the perimeter of the Lower 48 one
> all over the Canadian Maritimes; and the hours I spent poring over the
> sectionals, looking for the most desirable routes, the best stopping
> places, and so forth, was almost as much fun as making the flights.
>
> In addition to the pure enjoyment, I learned a lot about the
> topography of my route by drawing course lines on the charts, and
> discovered interesting places I would not have known about had I
> depended on a computer to do my thinking for me.
>
> vince norris

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

Thanks for all your replies! I myself use charts, and an excel
spreadsheet for the navigation log. I've checked out a few flight
planning software, but they all seemed pricey. Aeroplanner seems to be a
good alternative, so does Copilot. Of course, it's great to blow the
dust off the E-6B once in a while!

One of my friends just got into flying. I took him to the neighborhood
pilot shop (@ PAO), and oriented him with the things he might need,
including the E-6B. It sure was an interesting experience, and one that
brought back memories of my own training. 4 years is sure a long time!

-Sridhar

Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>

[vincent p. norris]

>Using DUATS or other planners doesn't necessarily mean letting the software
>select your waypoints. You can choose those yourself, and just let the
>planner perform the tedious calculation of each leg's distance, course,
>ground speed, wind correction angle, elapsed time, and fuel consumption.

But I don't find it tedious to plot each leg's course and distance.
It is part of being a pilot; how can it be tedious?

It's analogous, I think, to an amateur photographer's saying that
planning his composition and deciding what shutter speed and f-stop to
use, are tedious.

Obvously, I can't calculate GS, WCA and ET because I won't know the
wind until the day of the trip--and even then, wind forecasts are
notoriously inaccurate. My airplane's fuel consumption is something I
already know.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>He asked what flight planning software we use. He asked how many people DO
>use software.
>
>Why would I answer, given that I don't use any software?

Didn't my post answer that question, Pete?

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

Glad to see that at least a couple of others like to do it the
hands-on way. ((:-))

> Of course, it's great to blow the dust off the E-6B once in a while!
>
>One of my friends just got into flying. I took him to the neighborhood
>pilot shop (@ PAO), and oriented him with the things he might need,
>including the E-6B.

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?

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.

vince norris

[C J Campbell]

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?

[Peter Duniho]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> Didn't my post answer that question, Pete?

No. I saw no statement in your post addressing the question of why a person
who did not use flight planning software would respond to a query regarding
what flight planning software you use.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> I don't doubt you are fast, but I would suggest that a computer doing a
> 1,000 nm cross country could do it faster than you since it involves many
> different weather patterns, different mag. var., and different altitudes.

To each his own. However, IMHO people who use computers to do any variety
of tasks forget that even though the computer reports the results to twenty
decimal places, that doesn't mean you actually have information that
accurate.

Weather, in particular, is the biggest variable in any cross-country, and it
is the least reliable data that goes into what a flight planning package
uses. Your software is using the winds aloft forecast, but frankly, the
best use I've found for the winds aloft forecast is to tell me what the
winds WON'T be doing. Granted, they are sometimes close (but often not),
but they have practically never been on the mark.

> I also find that the computer plotting airmets and their relatives is much
> faster. By the time you drag out a chart, A/FD to figure out where those
> strange ID's are, the computer has already drawn it up. Then you have to
> figure the time to plot TFR's, and you better not mess up or else, a
> computer is very useful.

TFR's are a good point. However, on a XC most of the time you will be above
the ceiling of the TFR anyway. It's good to have a general idea of where
they are, and you can look more closely if they appear to be near your
route. But flight planning software is by no means necessary for the
purpose of dealing with them.

As for the other elements of the route, one of the problems with flight
planning software is that by the time you drag out a chart, A/FD to figure
out where those strange ID's are (what strange ID's? last I checked,
airmets were not for particular airports and other reporting stations), the
computer has already drawn it up. A pilot not plotting his route by hand ve
ry often does not notice the small details along that route that actually
affect their flight. Using software doesn't preclude doing that, of course,
but nevertheless that is usually the result.

> I agree with you in that FlightStar is very good. I disagree with the 2
> pilots who claim they don't need, nor understand anybody using it. I
> believe to not use it is irresponsible and that's why we have pilot's
> breaking TFR's daily

Perhaps I am one of "the 2 pilots" (I saw more, so it's hard to say who
you're talking about). I certainly never said I don't understand anybody
using flight planning software. However, I don't use it, and despite having
four perma-TFR's in my immediate neighborhood, as well as flying past
numerous fire-fighting TFR's on a variety of cross-countries (including
three that spanned the width of the entire contiguous US), I have managed to
not bust a TFR so far, nor had any other problems that flight planning
software might have helped me avoid.

I certainly don't think not using flight planning software is irresponsible,
no more than I think that not using a GPS is irresponsible. Those tools are
well and good for those who wish to use them, but it is entirely possible to
have a perfectly well-planned and safe flight without them.

> Pilots should and MUST take advantage of ALL information relating to their
> flights now a days, or one day we might lose that right. It's the few who
> insist on not doing things by the book that cause all of us trouble.

"ALL"? Come on. No pilot ever takes advantage of literally all information
relating to their flight. You have to draw the line somewhere. You are
being silly to insist that your line is any more rational than someone
else's. The best you can say is that it's more rational FOR YOU.

> In other words, I feel that pilots who look with disdain upon those of us
> who use flight software don't understand this new world we've been thrust
> into.

It's okay for you to look with disdain at me, but perish the thought someone
should look at disdain at you? For the record, I do not look at disdain
upon you, but I also feel it's hypocritical for you to look with disdain at
me.

Pete

[Gary L. Drescher]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >Using DUATS or other planners doesn't necessarily mean letting the
software
> >select your waypoints. You can choose those yourself, and just let the
> >planner perform the tedious calculation of each leg's distance, course,
> >ground speed, wind correction angle, elapsed time, and fuel consumption.
>
> But I don't find it tedious to plot each leg's course and distance.
> It is part of being a pilot; how can it be tedious?

Repetitive arithmetic calculations are tedious (and error-prone) regardless
of the context. Besides, another part of being a pilot is making use of the
best available tools. And where do you draw the line? If you balk at using
a flight planner to calculate each leg's course, distance, ground speed,
wind correction, elapsed time, and fuel used, then why not reject the E6B as
well, and insist on doing all the calculations with just pencil and paper?

> My airplane's fuel consumption is something I already know.

Yes, but the fuel used for each leg (as well as the cumulative usage and
remaining fuel at each waypoint) has to be calculated afresh.

> Obvously, I can't calculate GS, WCA and ET because I won't know the
> wind until the day of the trip--and even then, wind forecasts are
> notoriously inaccurate.

Using a flight planner, I can quickly generate a no-wind plan for each of
several prospective routes, comparing the distances and times involved. I
can contrast a direct route with a more scenic route, or look at various IFR
routes that ATC might assign me. Shortly before the flight, I can get
wind-adjusted plans for several scenarios, including different altitudes as
well as different routes. A strong wind has a significant impact on flight
times; even inaccurate forecasts are usually a better bet than a no-wind
plan on a windy day.

I see the value in occasionally calculating diversion legs by hand while
flying, just to stay in practice for real-time planning. But I don't need
to perform that exercise for each leg of each contemplated route of each
flight, any more than I need to re-read all the FARs before each flight.

--Gary

> vince norris

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:wCfdb.603792$uu5.98880@sccrnsc04...
> [...] And where do you draw the line? If you balk at using
> a flight planner to calculate each leg's course, distance, ground speed,
> wind correction, elapsed time, and fuel used, then why not reject the E6B
as
> well, and insist on doing all the calculations with just pencil and paper?

I can't speak for Vince, but in my own case, my reasoning involves the fact
that the E6B produces results that are accurate within the same order of
magnitude as what the airplane is capable of flying. There's no need to use
anything any more accurate, because the real world gets in the way of those
calculations being relevant.

I don't so much "balk at using a flight planner" as I do enjoy the manual
process of planning a flight, and see no significant advantage to using
flight planning software.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I am neck-deep in computers
the rest of my life. I also prefer to fly strictly VFR by pilotage. I have
an instrument rating, and use it when necessary. I even enjoy those
moments. But what I like best is flying without all that transistorized
equipment.

> Yes, but the fuel used for each leg (as well as the cumulative usage and
> remaining fuel at each waypoint) has to be calculated afresh.

While many aircraft manuals provide detailed fuel consumption figures for
climb, cruise, and descent, I have found that for my own airplane, using a
single "gallons per hour" consumption rate and a single "average TAS" is
just as accurate. I regularly complete flights to within five minutes of my
calculated time, with similar precision on fuel consumption. Given that I'm
flying with an hour of fuel reserves, there's just no need to be any more
accurate. It's a waste of precious time that could be used flying.

This approach has worked well for flights in other aircraft as well (Cessna
172s and 182s mostly), though of course it depends somewhat on being more
familiar with the airplane, a luxury I have as an airplane owner.

> Using a flight planner, I can quickly generate a no-wind plan for each of
> several prospective routes, comparing the distances and times involved.

I can quickly do that without a flight planner.

> I can contrast a direct route with a more scenic route, or look at various
IFR
> routes that ATC might assign me.

I can quickly do that without a flight planner.

> Shortly before the flight, I can get
> wind-adjusted plans for several scenarios, including different altitudes
as
> well as different routes. A strong wind has a significant impact on
flight
> times; even inaccurate forecasts are usually a better bet than a no-wind
> plan on a windy day.

I disagree. IMHO, the most practical approach is to use the winds aloft
solely as a "suggestion" as to general conditions, and whether flying higher
or lower will result in better groundspeeds. I start with a no-wind plan,
provide plenty of fuel reserves (as mentioned, minimum of one hour, but
payload allowing, it can be much more), and constantly update my flight plan
in-flight. Landing early for fuel has only been required once, but is
always an option I expect to take.

Using flight planning software does nothing to change that.

I have had plenty of flights where the winds aloft said I was going to have
a tailwind, but when I actually found myself in cruise flight, had a
headwind. I haven't been keeping count, but off the top of my head, I'd say
it's conservatively at least a quarter of my XC flights.

> [...] But I don't need
> to perform that exercise for each leg of each contemplated route of each
> flight, any more than I need to re-read all the FARs before each flight.

If you don't enjoy doing so, then by all means, use flight planning
software. But you should not consider your flight plan any more accurate
than one done by hand.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:55:02 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "ALL"? Come on. No pilot ever takes advantage of literally all information
> relating to their flight. You have to draw the line somewhere. You are

The ALL that I refer to is what the FAA refers to. To be specific I want
to know details about my route of flight, notams, tfr's, weather, and of
course the airports, including starting and ending, and the ones in
between. Software makes that easy and relatively painfree compared to
plotting it by hand. I've tried that. Called FSS got a briefing and a
TFR. They told me it was by such and such a road at this speedway. I'm
not from that area, I had no idea where it was, it sure wasn't on my
charts I'll tell you that. So, I had to drag out a street atlas, locate
it and transfer it to my chart. My software can do that in one click. I
still call and get briefings even after my software has done it's job
because I don't trust it when it comes to TFR's. And with the President
campaigning all over the country you better know where you're at because
my plane can't fly over those...

> should look at disdain at you? For the record, I do not look at disdain
> upon you, but I also feel it's hypocritical for you to look with disdain at

I believe a pilot who does not get a briefing before flying is asking for
trouble and they need to be weeded out. Explain to me why it's that hard
to call FSS and ask for a briefing. Tell me why recently we had a posting
from a person who said they flew to their destination only to find it
closed? I wonder what they forgot to do? I'm not saying I look with
disdain upon you, I look with disdain upon those pilots who could have got
a briefing via software, telephone, or in person and chose not to because
it wasn't comfortable.

I maintain that if they got the pertinent info for their flight they would
not have arrived to find the airport closed. In the case here locally the
pilot called their son to have him meet her at our airport, he arrived and
asked us if we had seen so and so cub. We told him the airport was closed
and had been for quite some time, but we saw a cub fly past and assumed it
went to another nearby airport. When she got there she was a nervous
wreck according to the FBO there because she hadn't planned on this
happening and couldn't catch her son on the phone. He showed up and all
was well due to help from others, but I maintain this pilot is a menace
and should learn to call FSS for a briefing. The key is, they didn't plan
and that's going to bite the rest of us in the ass some day. It's our
responsibility to insure fellow pilots do things the right way, not just
turn our head and mutter that SOB's going to kill somebody someday.

I don't like it myself, but I deal with it because I don't want to be the
cause of problems. Our airport closed early for work due to this, a pilot
didn't get a briefing and wasn't aware of construction going on, I don't
know how he missed all the torn up ground and X's on one of the runways,
but anyhow he managed to get spooked when he saw equipment on the runway
and called the FAA to report an incursion. Wouldn't have happened had he
known what was going on, so the city closed the airport altogether
because one pilot didn't get a briefing and the city was protecting it's
assets.

That's how important briefings can be, and I maintain that for those who
are scared of calling FSS or don't want the hassle, software is suitable
for it and should be used.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> I believe a pilot who does not get a briefing before flying is asking for
> trouble and they need to be weeded out.

You are confusing getting a complete preflight briefing with using flight
planning software. I do the former without doing the latter, and I take
offense at your claim that I need to be "weeded out".

Pete

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:41:55 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
> ray.net...
>> I believe a pilot who does not get a briefing before flying is asking for
>> trouble and they need to be weeded out.
>
> You are confusing getting a complete preflight briefing with using flight
> planning software. I do the former without doing the latter, and I take
> offense at your claim that I need to be "weeded out".

Read what I wrote, nowhere did I say you need to be weeded out. I don't
know how you got that absurd idea into your head but I didn't say it and
if you read my post you'll see I didn't even imply it.

Now, you apparently are not familiar with good flight planning software
because it allows you to get a complete briefing from FSS. I call FSS in
addition because I want my voice on tape getting a briefing just in case.

What I am trying to get across is that software allows a pilot to get a
complete briefing including graphic maps of weather and other items
related to flight faster and more accurately than calling FSS. I've even
had to remind the local FSS of a notam they forgot to include, when I'd
ask them what about x they'd know that I already had a briefing and
usually said so. I've never had to remind my software about a notam that
was missing in the briefing. The local FSS is good at interpreting things
for you, but they miss things where the software doesn't.

Not to mention that on a long cross country the local FSS will tell you to
call the other FSS for information there, they don't provide things beyond
their own area, the computer software does it all at once so it's faster.

That's all I'm saying, it's useful and accurate. Pilots should take
advantage of it. If you can't that's fine, but if you can you should
because it's more likely to keep you out of trouble than a phone call
would. FSS is not always on top of notams, even when they're in the
system.

Read this, I know you said you call FSS for a briefing, I'm not saying you
are dangerous. I am saying pilots that don't, or won't, those are the
ones who cause trouble. Software just makes it painless.

I hope you realize I am cautious in my flying, I do everything in my power
to insure a great flight. I plan it all, and nothing makes me more
pleased than seeing a hand done plan come out on time and on course. I
also enjoy VFR flying, using pilotage and DED Reckoning are just plain
fun, but software is another tool in your bag of tricks.

[vincent p. norris]

>I can't speak for Vince......

Well, you did it pretty well, Pete.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>> Didn't my post answer that question, Pete?
>
>No. I saw no statement in your post ...

Technically, you're right, of course. I was responding to the spirit,
not the letter, of the question. And indirectly, I was responding to a
generalized version of question three--i.e., I was commenting
adversely on the *dependence* on all such programs.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>I don't doubt you are fast, but I would suggest that a computer doing a
>1,000 nm cross country could do it faster than you

What is the value in that? A beginner with a "point-and-shoot" camera
can take a picture of Half Dome at Yosemite a lot faster than Ansel
Adams could, but is that how you would judge photography?

And I'll wager Ansel Adams got a lot more fun and satisfaction from
doing it his way than the person with the point-and-shoot.

>There is no way a pilot can call the many FSS's and get briefings from
>each of them

Why would anyone want to do that?

>.... I'm apprehensive about a big cross country.

It's good to be cautious, but experience will enable you to overcome
apprehension.

> I disagree with the 2 pilots who claim they don't need, nor understand anybody using it. I
>believe to not use it is irresponsible and that's why we have pilot's breaking TFR's daily,

Now you've gone off the deep end. Do you also think it's
irresponsible to fly without a GPS? How about flying a J-3 with no
radio?

I've been flying since 1946, both civilian and military, and have
never wandered into any area I shouldn't have. GOOD PLANNING is
important. It doesn't have to be done with a computer program.

> plus the sad habit of not getting briefs.

That's another matter entirely.

vince norris

[Flyingslanted]

Sridhar Rajagopal > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar


I use fligh soft. You can download Duats as well. However I never
rely soly on this and call for a weather briefing once at the airport
to make sure nothing has changed. That's the thing about weather, it
get away with anything it wants to, when it wants to.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:00:18 -0400, vincent p. norris wrote:

> I wasn't objecting to obtaining weather maps, etc., via the internet.
> was objecting to depending on a computer to plan the route and do the
> navigating for you.

Just because you use software does not mean you let it plan your routes
for you. I use mine and select my route, picking my stops based on fuel
prices that would take me forever if I called each airport up and asked
them what they charge.

> But that's entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You' keep
> changing the subject.

Guilty as charged, but I changed it based on responses from others.

> No, it was painless long before software, or even personal computers,
> came into existence.

OK, it's painless, but it takes longer. Unlike you I don't enjoy spending
half a day planning a 1,000 nm cross country. I want to get it planned as
fast as I can so I can do other things. With software I can plan my route
based on the same thing I'd do with paper charts. I select my route based
on obstructions/terrain, stops for fuel/facilities/food, and scenic things
to look at. Just because I use a computer to do it does not remove me
from the planning stages. I still do exactly the same thing except it's
in front of me at once, not spread across a room.

You mentioned not calling each FSS for a brief, how in the world do you
avoid TFR's then? If you call only your local FSS they will not tell you
of a TFR that's out of their region. They won't tell you of notams
outside their region. How can you avoid oncoming weather if you don't
call other FSS's? What your local FSS gives you is not the complete
picture, and yes I know it changes and will be different by the time you
get there, but it's handy to know if things are getting better or worse
before you go.

I suppose you fly a Cub and that's why you don't call, it makes sense,
you'll take too long to get there and any brief you got before would be
useless anyhow, but some of us fly faster planes and in a couple hours can
travel across states and so a call to another FSS is required if you want
to be aware of all pertinent information regarding your route of flight.
Don't forget, if you don't get a briefing you're violating FAR's.

§91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar
with all available information concerning that flight. This information
must include --

You can read the rest, but the catchall phrase is all information
concerning that flight. So, how can you not violate a FAR by refusing to
call other FSS's for additional information that your local FSS can't
supply? If you were to fly to New York, how would you avoid the
Presidential TFR's if you won't call a different FSS? I've tried to get
that information from my local FSS and they don't give it out and tell me
to call the other FSS. My airport is shortening it's runway, if you don't
call our FSS and get that info you could violate a FAR because runway
length is a mandatory item. So, if your FSS won't give it to you, and you
won't call mine, how can you make the flight legally?

This is how I got off topic, my software does all that for me, that's why
it's useful. Then when I check with the FSS I already know what I should
be told and can quiz them. I can't quiz the computer so that's another
reason I call.

As I said before, pilots should take advantage of any technology they can
have access to so that they avoid trouble. Those who can and refuse I
don't understand. I have friends who wouldn't know a computer if it bit
them in the ass, and they also fly a plane with no radio and won't call
FSS either. I don't believe that's being responsible, and I believe it's
a violation of the FAR's to boot.

Yes, all this can be done the old way, I think it's painful to call many
FSS's and get many briefings, and spend hours pouring over a chart and
calling each airport near my intended fuel stops to check for fuel
pricing. I'd rather be flying and by using software I can get the big
picture quickly. My apprehension about long cross countries will never go
away because I know pilots who've blundered into TFR's that their local
FSS didn't advise them of, and things change with TFR's. I don't
understand how you can be so calm about flying a big cross country based
on what can happen if you don't call the local FSS to that area for TFR's
and such. Flying it is easy, but the risk of a TFR violation is greatly
increased by not doing a very complete briefing, one that would take you
hours upon hours if you do it the old way.

In case you haven't noticed, I resent how our airspace is managed now, I
like the way I used to fly. There is such freedom in just going to the
airport and hopping in the plane and droning along. It's more stressful
now that we have all these silly TFR's and rules of loitering. How am I
supposed to know where a stadium is that's 500 miles away? How can I
avoid what I don't know to avoid? Sure, I can fly higher than 3K, but
suppose I see something I want to look at, how do I know if I can?

Software helps me find those damn things faster than I could using any
other means. That my friend is why I believe it's irresponsible to not
use every tool at your disposal. It's much too easy to become familiar
with your route now a days to not do so, and I don't want to be the guy
who violates a TFR that gets GA grounded forever. With the govt. in
charge now I wouldn't put it past them to ground GA if too many
presidential TFR's get busted.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> OK, it's painless, but it takes longer. Unlike you I don't enjoy spending
> half a day planning a 1,000 nm cross country.

I have never spent half a day planning a 1000 NM XC. And that's not for
lack of having flown a 1000 NM XC. For the longer XCs, the most I typically
spend on flight planning is a couple of hours, and usually I have it done in
an hour. That includes planning alternates and getting a weather briefing,
along with a review of the charts that even a person using flight planning
software would have to do.

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.

Pete

[vincent p. norris]

>You mentioned not calling each FSS for a brief, how in the world do you
>avoid TFR's then?

Do you check wx with Flight Service as you fly along? You can call
FSS's the same way. I also get "into the system" by requesting traffic
advisories.

>I suppose you fly a Cub

No, a PA 28 (with radios).

>you'll take too long to get there

I *plan* my long-distance flights days before take-off. I talk to FSS
before leaving for the airport, after checking wx, etc., on the net.

I fly legs of about three hours and talk to FSS at each stop.

Once in awhile I change my route because of unexpected changes in wx,
but not very often. (I can go IFR if necessary.)

vince norris

[Matthew P. Cummings]

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?

[Paul Tomblin]

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

[A Lieberman]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> 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

[Tom S.]

"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

[C J Campbell]

"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?

[Matthew P. Cummings]

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> > "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

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

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
>
>
>
>

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

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.

[Sridhar Rajagopal]

Here is a summary of the flight planning devices/aids that people use:

Flight planning

* DUAT (DynCorp, Cirrus, direct telnet)
* Aeroplanner
* Copilot
* FliteSoft
* FliteStar
* AirPlan
* TAU
* Anywhere Map/Planner
* E6B
* Dos version of FlightSoft Pro

Other aids

*Airnav.com
* FSS
* Verizon's pilot weather on the mobile.

-Sridhar

Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:

> 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.

OK... here's another "all-manual" flightplanner! Unless you count the
basic calculator I keep handy, it's all whizz-wheel E6B, paper, pencil &
sectional for me...

I like Post-It notes for planning; I've gotten into the habit of putting
CFS information onto a PostIt for each airport I'm going to, and sticking
the PostIt to the chart near the appropriate airport. Likewise
distance/time/fuel for each leg, sometimes.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -



>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Hilton]

Sridhar,

Take a look at WingX for the Pocket PC at http://www.hiltonsoftware.com As
far as flight planning, it has a database of airports, VORs, and NDBs and
will determine course, headings, distance, time, WCA etc. It has many other
functions too. Because it runs on a Pocket PC, you can do all this while
waiting at a red light, although I probably wouldn't advise that. :)

Hilton


"Sridhar Rajagopal" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about the following:
>
> 1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
> (VFR and IFR)?
> 2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
> 3) how would you rate it?
>
> Thanks!
> Sridhar
>