Navigation flight planning during training

[Andrew Sarangan]

This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?

During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
ground speed.

All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.

I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

[Jay Beckman]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>

<Snip>

I'm probably unqualified to offer solid suggestions regarding flight
training. But in my limited experience as a pilot, I'll say this:

I don't think "analog" flight planning should be overlooked or discounted
but any and all tools are, IMO, fair game.

The mechanics of doing a flight plan with paper sectional, plotter, flight
computer and A/FD make a pilot think about routes, checkpoints, etc...

However, use of electronic flight planning tools (and any associated pros
and/or cons) should be included in today's flight training environment. In
my own personal flying today, I really like the Golden Eagle Flight Prep
product as it allows me to play with routes ad infitum (with an eye to
terrain avoidance/clearance...the route profile view is really handy) while
not turning my sectionals into a spider's web of pencil lines. Once I get
the route, I still draw it on my sectional while noting major checkpoints
but I also print the "strip maps" of sectional images from Flight Prep and
go nuts with pen and highlighter adding freqs, altitudes and circling
anything and everything of interest along the way.

As for the actual flight plan itself, I find that filing and printing via
duats has yielded plans which (so far) I've flown and have yet to be more
than +/- two minutes off E.T.E.

Letting the "1s" and "0s" do the work should be discussed, used and
post-flight scrutinized.

Just my $0.02 ...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

[TheSmokingGnu]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?

Yes, yes, yes (analog AND digital), and yes.

While I did learn to use the DUATS system for getting briefings, I never
file plans with it. I still make the phone call to the local FSS, and I
still talk to a real person for a briefing and filing (some of the guys
are pretty cool).

I still write up the plans by hand, mark them out by hand, compute their
relevant stats and highlight POI's, navaids, etc. etc. by hand. I was
never taught to use electronic systems (other than the aforementioned
information), and I think I'm a better pilot for it.

> If we want to be more precise, we also
> compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> ground speed.

One of the schools that I've flown with before taught us interpolation
of EVERY chart and EVERY figure, and how to work in applicable variables
(no guesstimating your climb performance if it was +13C above standard,
you found the RIGHT number)

All wonderful parts of the flying experience (gives you something to do
besides watch the GPS, which I've also never been fully versed on; you
whippersnappers with your newfangled glass cockpits, it's a Cessna fer
Pete's sake!)

Checking over your plan keeps your mind focused on the task of
navigation, and helps verify and reinforce your capabilities as a pilot
and a navigator (which do wonders for confidence), plus it helps you
visualize your current situation, and adjust to any new developments by
giving you lots of sample points (and keeping your apprised of your
current locations with those unburnout-able, unperturbable, invaluable
paper charts.

> I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> a computer.
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?

It is very important to do it by hand; what if things go pear-shaped,
and you need to plot a new course NOW, in the air, with only your paper
charts, E6B, ruler and a friendly voice at the other end of a NAV/COM?

What if your fancy-dancy multi-thousand dollar GPS system goes tits-up?
You have an electrical short (or an alternator failure, and need to
conserve power)?

While the merits of filing through DUATS can't really be argued
(especially if your typing skills are up to snuff), flying was, is, and
should always be a social experience; there's nothing to replace human
contact, even if it's with an FSS jockey, there's an inexorable feeling
of knowing that somewhere, at least one real person knows where you're
going, to say nothing of the often-times helpful suggestions of places
to see or diversions worth making that I've received before.

Doing things by hand keeps a pilot intimately acquainted with his craft,
with the process and necessity of each step (and how to actually read
those prog charts!), with muscle memory and skills that can always be
fallen back on in emergency, and helps keep the social traditions of
flying alive.

TheSmokingGnu

[kontiki]

I believe the basic methods should still be taught to student pilots
and I do teach them. IMHO pilots should be able to flight plan without
computers, satellites or high speed internet. Once these skills have
been learned and the underlying principles understood then I'm all for
using a computer to do it.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?


Well, I'm neither but I am traditional. Certainly the newer and more convenient
ways of flight planning need to be taught. At the same time, I think you're
doing your student a disservice if he doesn't learn how to do it the old
fashioned way. You don't always have access to a computer.

It would be analogous to expecting to fly by GPS only to have it take a crap on
you. Certainly being able to find your way via VORs and NDBs would be an
advantage.

When I was learning, even though we had a perfectly reliable VOR system, we
still were expected to be able to find our way by pilotage. I can, too...
though it's hardly the way I'd choose to go. But the skill set wasn't a total
waste of time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Kevin Clarke]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>
Neither student nor teacher, but I was a student not so long ago (4yrs)
and that is how I was taught. With my trusty E6B and just what all those
numbers mean.

The cool thing about learning how to flight plan that way is that it
teaches you all the underlying principles behind navigation. Plus it
builds a foundation for going on to advanced ratings. Take something
like WCA. How could you do a 1 minute hold if you didn't understand how
to calculate wind correction? Likewise for emergency planning, how much
fuel do I have, can I make that field? You have to know all the numbers
from the POH to do that. So it is good stuff. Lastly it satisfies the
FAR 91.103 PIC, BEFORE beginning a flight shall become familiar with all
available information concerning the flight. Grabbing a printout from
some flight planning service doesn't qualify in my mind. Of course,
"familiar" is vague. I'm sure the lawyers on this list will parse that
ad nauseum.

KC

[Denny]

Well, that is the question - as we move into the age of instantaneous
position display on the panel...
Like you, I learned to plan a flight by practically wearing out an E6B
and laying waste to a small forest... Then the flight was made by
sweating my way from one check point to another at a flaming 96 mph at
1500 feet agl, in my nordo T-Craft...

Does that particular skill mean anything today? - Well, I guess if
every electronic navigation aid was shut down I could, push comes to
shove, pull out the old E6B and plan a flight from the Canadian border
down to Florida, the old way... Actually I'm not looking forward to
it, though...
The planning for the most recent flight over that route was done
mostly by watching the Weather Channel for a couple of days prior to
leaving... Getting a current weather briefing and TFR notices over
the route about 5 minutes before launching... On the way out the door
glancing at the wall map of the USA and deciding that Chattanoga
looked like a good spot to refuel... Climbed in the plane, dialed up
the GPS moving map and told it, "take me to KCHA", cruise climbed to
10,500 and away we went...
Yes, I did keep a Howie Keefe nav chart open on my lap and a VOR
somewhere up ahead tuned in on the radio in case the GPS started
leaking magic smoke... And some visual navigation was done, mostly of
the , "see there, that's the runways at Dayton" variety, for the
passengers amusement...

It's a new world and while learning how to plot a track on a nav chart
and visually navigate there will be part of early cross country
training, immediately after the student demonstrates he can do it one
time, the CFI will turn his remaining teaching to the vastly more
important issues of managing the glass cockpit...

Chatting with a group of newer pilots at an airport in Indiana the
topic of NDB approaches came up... Turns out, of 4 IFR pilots in the
group, none had ever done an NDB approach... So, on the flight back
home I used the NDB receiver as I always do, tuned in the ball game
and followed the expressway home - staying to the right, of course...

denny

[Blanche]

> fancy-dancy multi-thousand dollar GPS system

nope - mine's a $125 hiker's model.

But seriously folks...I find that planning is much more fun than
most flying. Let's face it - as a VFR pilot, a cross-country is
pretty boring (at least out here in the west, if you avoid the
mountains). Not too many people to talk to, we don't have an airport
every 5 miles, we're usually too low to talk to Center, etc.

I admit, I use software for flight planning - but then, I'm a
Professional Geek. As one of the other posters noted, it's so
much easier to look at alternates, deal with terrain, etc than
marking up the maps. Once I settle on a route, then I may or may
not copy it to the physical map. Depends on the route and length
of the flight. DEN-PUB? Nope. Got that one pretty well memorized.

I left my GPS (I really do have an aviation GPS portable, too) in the
trunk of the car this past week (thought I'd lost it!) and was
"forced, I mean sir, FORCED" to use maps and VORs. Which I do all
the time anyway. Around here, the GPS is invaluable for monitoring
where Class B and MOAs are located (and out west, they are growing!)

But I don't circle stuff on the maps - I use yellow stickies that
I've written pertinent info (wx, freqs, etc) in LARGER letters so
I can more rapidly & easily find it. Even wearing the bifocals, that
type on sectionals and IFR maps is just too tiny in the cockpit.

Of course the freqs & info for the VORs and airports I need are on
a half-sheet on the yoke (in 14 pt type)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>
> During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
> elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
> boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
> each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
> wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
> the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
> required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
> compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> ground speed.
>
> All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
> online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
> online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
> is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.
>
> I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
> addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
> organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
> cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.
>
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?

Yes, yes and yes.

It's just like mathmatics in school. In the real world you are 99 times out
of 100 going to use a calculator but unless you understand the operation you
don't really know that what comes out of the calculator is correct.

Add to that the the future pilot you are training might end up starting a
flight from somewhere that has no computer terminal and all they have is a
sectional and E6B.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-12 22:28:59 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" > said:

> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?

I still teach them for several reasons. After all, we still teach
arithmetic to grade-school children despite the widespread use of
calculators.

The vast majority of aircraft are not yet equipped with GPS. Many do
not even have an electrical system. Yet, when we certify a pilot as
being able to fly, we certify that he is able to fly these kinds of
aircraft. We don't put a restriction in his logbook, "Working GPS only!"

Secondly, teaching the manual method can be an enormous help to the
student in gaining an understanding of automated methods. It is a lot
easier to work with a paper chart on the ground than it is with a GPS
in the air. I have some concern, too, that simply punching in the
destination into a machine and letting it do the flight plan breeds a
little too much complacency. Putting a little thought into your routing
can yield great rewards.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Tim]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>
> During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
> elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
> boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
> each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
> wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
> the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
> required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
> compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> ground speed.
>
> All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
> online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
> online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
> is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.
>
> I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
> addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
> organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
> cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.
>
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?
>

The number one reason - the students will have no idea how to do it and
what is involved in planninng a flight. Show them all of it. Besides,
what do you think the examiner is going to say if they can;t figure out
how to do any of that stuff and the student says, "Oh I just use a
computer for that. My instructor says paper and pencils and those
things are useless these days." ?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?

Let me add one other thing to my post. I do think you ought to spend some
time and show the students how to use the newer technology. Maybe have them
do one manually and then have them do one via computer. Then spend some time
explaining the differences in the outcomes.

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/13/07 03:32, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>>
>> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
>> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
>> navigation logs?
>
>
> Well, I'm neither but I am traditional. Certainly the newer and more convenient
> ways of flight planning need to be taught. At the same time, I think you're
> doing your student a disservice if he doesn't learn how to do it the old
> fashioned way. You don't always have access to a computer.

The only thing I would change in this paragraph is calling it "the old
fashioned way". I think the student should learn and understand the basics
of the flight plan before automation can safely be applied.

Learning the basics really drive home the issues of wind correction angles,
fuel consumption, etc., all very important concepts even when using automated
flight planning software and GPSs.

>
> It would be analogous to expecting to fly by GPS only to have it take a crap on
> you. Certainly being able to find your way via VORs and NDBs would be an
> advantage.
>
> When I was learning, even though we had a perfectly reliable VOR system, we
> still were expected to be able to find our way by pilotage. I can, too...
> though it's hardly the way I'd choose to go. But the skill set wasn't a total
> waste of time.

What you should choose depends on the flight. Some flights I navigate by pilotage
simply because it is more fun. Especially night flights.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?

I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
diversion.

My favorite DE (I send him my students whenever I can, and have taken
several checkrides with him myself) probably fails more private
applicants on the diversion than on anything else (and he has a pretty
low failure rate - those of us who know him know better than to send
someone who is weak in some area to him in the hope that this area
might be missed - he has an uncommon knack for finding the weak area
in the strongest candidate) and there is a method to his madness.

If a student's turns around a point are egg-shaped, so what? When
will he do those again, and will it really matter if they don't look
good? If his steep turn loses a little more than the permitted 100
ft, or the angle of bank isn't held to 45 +/- 5, so what? When will
he do one again? Will it matter that he loses 200 ft?

A student who can't do a decent diversion will fail, and needs to
fail. Diversions are a fact of life. Headwinds sap your reserves and
cause you to land short. Weather unexpectedly changes and forces you
to alter course. Airports close unexpectedly. Flight restrictions
pop up. Mechanical problems that don't immediately force you to land
but make remaining in the air for hours inadvisable will happen.
Diversions are not a matter of if - just when and how.

So what is a diversion? It's an impromptu flight plan, made on short
(or no) notice, without access to all the lovely computers, maybe
without access to anything electronic at all.

Back in the dark ages, when I learned to fly, our skill at quick and
accurate flight planning was tested. I was told by my instructor that
when I showed up for the checkride, I would be given a destination and
told to plan the flight while the examiner waited - in 30 minutes.
That would include checkpoints, course, headings, runway requirements,
fuel - everything. I thought this impossible, but I was determined
and I practiced and I discovered that it really wasn't impossible -
once you really understood what you were doing and why. This directly
translated to being able to efficiently plan a diversion.

Is there any real value to planning a flight manually on the ground?
Not really. I can't think of the last time I did it. But all the
elements involved still have value. In your typical 100 kt spam can,
flying in just the lower 48, you can easily find yourself flying a
heading that's 45 degrees wrong (and never getting to your diversion
point) if you ignore things like magnetic variation and winds aloft,
and they happen to add instead of cancel. Go somewhere like West
Texas, and fuel becomes important (airports are no longer a few
minutes apart). And what if the weather is closing in below you, and
you have to climb to get over some clouds or terrain? All of a sudden
climb fuel becomes important.

I really can't see much that you can leave out of the typical manually
planned VFR flight without jeopardizing the ability of the student to
handle the diversion. It's all very well to say that we use
approximations in the diversion - we do. But you need to understand
what it is you are approximating.

Michael

[Andy Lutz]

This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
scared me.

What does a typical checkride look like?

BTW, I hope to learn HOW to do manual flight planning and not count on
electronic planners, but in practice I expect to use many means to plan XCs
in addition to knowing HOW.

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
>> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
>> overlooking?
>
> I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
> diversion.
>
> My favorite DE (I send him my students whenever I can, and have taken
> several checkrides with him myself) probably fails more private
> applicants on the diversion than on anything else (and he has a pretty
> low failure rate - those of us who know him know better than to send
> someone who is weak in some area to him in the hope that this area
> might be missed - he has an uncommon knack for finding the weak area
> in the strongest candidate) and there is a method to his madness.
>
> If a student's turns around a point are egg-shaped, so what? When
> will he do those again, and will it really matter if they don't look
> good? If his steep turn loses a little more than the permitted 100
> ft, or the angle of bank isn't held to 45 +/- 5, so what? When will
> he do one again? Will it matter that he loses 200 ft?
>
> A student who can't do a decent diversion will fail, and needs to
> fail. Diversions are a fact of life. Headwinds sap your reserves and
> cause you to land short. Weather unexpectedly changes and forces you
> to alter course. Airports close unexpectedly. Flight restrictions
> pop up. Mechanical problems that don't immediately force you to land
> but make remaining in the air for hours inadvisable will happen.
> Diversions are not a matter of if - just when and how.
>
> So what is a diversion? It's an impromptu flight plan, made on short
> (or no) notice, without access to all the lovely computers, maybe
> without access to anything electronic at all.
>
> Back in the dark ages, when I learned to fly, our skill at quick and
> accurate flight planning was tested. I was told by my instructor that
> when I showed up for the checkride, I would be given a destination and
> told to plan the flight while the examiner waited - in 30 minutes.
> That would include checkpoints, course, headings, runway requirements,
> fuel - everything. I thought this impossible, but I was determined
> and I practiced and I discovered that it really wasn't impossible -
> once you really understood what you were doing and why. This directly
> translated to being able to efficiently plan a diversion.
>
> Is there any real value to planning a flight manually on the ground?
> Not really. I can't think of the last time I did it. But all the
> elements involved still have value. In your typical 100 kt spam can,
> flying in just the lower 48, you can easily find yourself flying a
> heading that's 45 degrees wrong (and never getting to your diversion
> point) if you ignore things like magnetic variation and winds aloft,
> and they happen to add instead of cancel. Go somewhere like West
> Texas, and fuel becomes important (airports are no longer a few
> minutes apart). And what if the weather is closing in below you, and
> you have to climb to get over some clouds or terrain? All of a sudden
> climb fuel becomes important.
>
> I really can't see much that you can leave out of the typical manually
> planned VFR flight without jeopardizing the ability of the student to
> handle the diversion. It's all very well to say that we use
> approximations in the diversion - we do. But you need to understand
> what it is you are approximating.
>
> Michael
>

[Lee McGee]

GPS - "nearest, enter, enter" is of course a good thing to know.

Instructor turns off GPS -- "your GPS failed!"

Student reaches into pocket and pulls out portable battery operated GPS....

(variation on the old flashlight joke).

--

but I think the old fashioned way is a good thing. I learned to fly 20
years ago, I still fly with a thumb on my position on a sectional on my lap
at all times, GPS or not.




Lee

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/13/07 10:16, Andy Lutz wrote:
> This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
> this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
> to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
> what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
> scared me.
>
> What does a typical checkride look like?

All my D.E. wanted to see was that I could tell where I was at (roughly)
so that I new which way to turn and roughly how far I was from the
alternate field. In fact, figuring at 2 NM/minute was considered an
acceptable 'guestimate' for the new ETE.

By the way, when you need to divert, get headed in the correct direction
first and note the time you began your leg. Then you can take whatever
time you need to determine the distance (from your leg's starting point)
and your ETE. Then use the time you've been on the leg to get your ETA.

If this sounds confusing, just sit down and try it - you'll see how it
all fits together quite logically; which is why you want to learn this
in the first place ;-)

>
> BTW, I hope to learn HOW to do manual flight planning and not count on
> electronic planners, but in practice I expect to use many means to plan XCs
> in addition to knowing HOW.

That's great. That's how it should be.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Andrew Sarangan]

Thanks for all the discussion on this topic. Regardless of your
personal opinion on the subject, this is a topic of high relevance due
to the rapid changes in technology taking place in the way we fly.

One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not
equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics.
Automation has the potential to allow us to focus on the important
tasks and let the computer take care of the mundane tasks. I once had
a student many years ago who computed all headings with great
precision, by hand using an E6B, only to find that he had reversed all
headings by 180 degress. He was all caught up in the details of the
computation that he forgot to see the big picture. With automation
that is less likely to happen. However, if it is not taught properly,
it can also be harmful.

There was an article in a recent aviation magazine (I can't remember
the magazine title) where they compared students who learned to fly in
glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments, and the
conclusion was that students who learned in the glass environment were
just as good as or even better than the previous generation.

So obviously a discussion on modernizing training methods is something
that need to be taken seriously.








On Mar 13, 10:40 am, Tim > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> > How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> > traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> > navigation logs?
>
> > During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
> > elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
> > boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
> > each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
> > wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
> > the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
> > required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
> > compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> > religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> > ground speed.
>
> > All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
> > online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
> > online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
> > is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.
>
> > I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> > teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> > see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> > a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
> > addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
> > organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
> > cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.
>
> > So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> > by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> > overlooking?
>
> The number one reason - the students will have no idea how to do it and
> what is involved in planninng a flight. Show them all of it. Besides,
> what do you think the examiner is going to say if they can;t figure out
> how to do any of that stuff and the student says, "Oh I just use a
> computer for that. My instructor says paper and pencils and those
> things are useless these days." ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Michael > posted:

> On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
>> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
>> overlooking?
>
> I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
> diversion.
>
(rest of an excellent post snipped for brevity)

I couldn't agree more with the points you've raised. We have become so
familiar with the shortcuts that computerization offers that we may lose
sight of the underlying principles. There is also merit in having some
notion of when the "computer solution" may not be the most prudent way to
proceed.

Even though I have written my own xc spreadsheets to reduce manual
paperwork and have had a GPS for years, I don't think that manual planning
is a waste of time. I don't leave on any long xc without my course and
options clearly marked on a sectional, because the more I do up front, the
more I can relax and enjoy the flight.

Regards,

Neil

[Euan Kilgour]

On Mar 13, 6:28 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?

Manual computation of flight planning is a vital fundamental IMHO.
Notes scribbled on a piece of paper and a line on a map can't run out
of batteries, crash, or become unserviceable mid flight. They lend
themselves to be modified in flight with only minor fuss.

The new flashy PC/net/GPS based toys are great, and for the most part
do a great job, but at the end of the day its my life I am gambling
with and I always use my electronic nav aids as an aid, not a
crutch. Thats something which we are seeing more and more often when
low time pilots (like me) hit the Direct-To on their GPS, cut in the
autopilot and cause no end of mayhem in the process.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Thanks for all the discussion on this topic. Regardless of your
> personal opinion on the subject, this is a topic of high relevance due
> to the rapid changes in technology taking place in the way we fly.

I agree it is a subject that is very relevent.

>
> One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not
> equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics.
> Automation has the potential to allow us to focus on the important
> tasks and let the computer take care of the mundane tasks.

I think you would find that in order to know the student had a full grasp of
the fundamentals you would end up teaching them the "old" way. Automation is
great. Computers are great, hell they allow us to have this conversation.
But just like I still need to be able to ask a local fellow flyer a question
from time to time there will be times when computers and the internet aren't
going to be available to the pilot.


>I once had
> a student many years ago who computed all headings with great
> precision, by hand using an E6B, only to find that he had reversed all
> headings by 180 degress. He was all caught up in the details of the
> computation that he forgot to see the big picture. With automation
> that is less likely to happen. However, if it is not taught properly,
> it can also be harmful.


The exact same thing could easily happen in a flight planning program or
even worse. He types in the wrong airport code and flys the plan without
catching it.

>
> There was an article in a recent aviation magazine (I can't remember
> the magazine title) where they compared students who learned to fly in
> glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments, and the
> conclusion was that students who learned in the glass environment were
> just as good as or even better than the previous generation.
>


I'm sure they did. I also wouldn't be surprised if those trained in glass
didn't transition easier to steam.


> So obviously a discussion on modernizing training methods is something
> that need to be taken seriously.
>

The problem is there are lots of different flight planning programs and
services out there. Which one are you going to teach. All the ones I've used
seem to be designed so that someone who understands the "old" way can figure
them out. The flip side of that is that if you teach someone via a specific
program are they going to be able to understand the operation of another
program or even the same one after a major revision?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andy Lutz" < wrote

> This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
> this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
> to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight
> planning, what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS,
> but you scared me.
>
> What does a typical checkride look like?

Whoa, big fella!

You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Are you a reasonably intelligent person? Do you have a determination to
take on this thing called flying, and achieve it?

If you answered yes, then don't worry about what happens on the check ride.
You have a person that is as interested as you are, in seeing you get your
private ticket. He is called your instructor. DE's want you to get it too,
as long as the DE is not one of those people with a goal of making you look
foolish, and your instructor will not send you to one of them.

Take one step at a time. When you master one skill, you build on it, and
then learn a new skill and master it.

It is like eating. You can't shove a whole meal in your mouth at one time.
You eat a big feast -one bite- at a time.

Take a deep breath. Stand back and look at what you have learned, and
relax, and enjoy the new experiences, and the challenges of learning new
skills.

You can, and will do it, if you stick with it.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Gardner]

Suffice it to say that I am in complete disagreement with your position.
Electronic aids are wonderful, but every pilot needs to know how to navigate
by pilotage.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>
> During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
> elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
> boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
> each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
> wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
> the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
> required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
> compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> ground speed.
>
> All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
> online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
> online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
> is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.
>
> I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
> addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
> organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
> cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.
>
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?
>

[[email protected]]

> destination into a machine and letting it do the flight plan breeds a
> little too much complacency. Putting a little thought into your routing
> can yield great rewards.

Yeah, true. I am still quite bad at doing it the old fashioned way
(even after passing a checkride) but I still take the trouble to do it
that way because it feels more rewarding. Besides, just using the GPS
makes it a bit like flying in a simulator. However I do find it hard
to do a diversion to an unknown airport and fold the chart to draw an
imaginary line, figure out a new heading, correct for wind etc. I tend
to cheat in that situation and get help from flight following or rely
on the GPS if I have one.

[Jim Logajan]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?

Hey, what have you got against sextants!?

(I finished reading "Fate is the Hunter" a couple weeks ago.)

Frankly I don't trust any method that involves pens or pencils - the pens
are likely to run out of ink at the worst time and I always manage to break
the points on the pencils.

;-)

[Andrew Sarangan]

I think many people are interpreting 'computer-aided flight planning'
to mean GPS navigation. That is totally not what I meant. I re-read my
original post, and I didn't even use the word GPS anywhere.

I fully agree that pilotage and dead reckoning are critical skills. My
question was not about in-flight use of electronic aids, but their use
on the ground during preflight planning.

Furthermore, I am not taking a 'postion'. I am raising it as a topic
that needs to be discussed.





On Mar 13, 5:56 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Suffice it to say that I am in complete disagreement with your position.
> Electronic aids are wonderful, but every pilot needs to know how to navigate
> by pilotage.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 13, 12:16 pm, "Andy Lutz" > wrote:
> This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training

When I was 9 hours into my PPL training, this would have sounded way
overwhelming to me too. At that point, I hadn't even learned to land
an airplane reliably under optimal conditions. At the 60-70 hour
mark, it didn't seem so bad at all.

When I was 9 hours into my multiengine training, I could barely land
the airplane single engine. At the 25 hour mark, a partial panel
single engine NDB approach with circle to land on a short runway
seemed no big deal.

Trust me, it gets better. Look at the PTS if you like, but realize
much of it may not make sense just yet. Many instructors believe in
trotting out the PTS from day one, to keep your eyes on the prize, I
suppose. I don't think much of that strategy. The PTS is a test
standard, not a training syllabus. Your instructor has (I assume) a
training syllabus. Many fine ones are commercially available, and
many flight schools have their own. By the time you get to the end of
the syllabus, the things I discuss will not seem so overwhelming.

> but is
> this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
> to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
> what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
> scared me.

I'm sorry I scared you. That was not the intent. The intent was to
explain to another instructor what I thought was missing in his
asessment of the utility of manual (as opposed to automated) flight
planning. I would be more than a bit surprised if, at 9 hours, you
were exposed to most of the concepts I discussed. That will come.
Right now, those are not your big issues. The only navigation I would
teach a student at your level is basic pilotage and map reading. I
wouldn't expect you to be venturing more than 10-20 miles from home
just yet. At this stage of the game, you need to be focusing on
aircarft control through the flight envelope, flight with reference to
the ground, and basic takeoff and landing skills. If you're really
sharp, you might just be soloing - but that would be unusual these
days.

Since you have already started flying, consider taking and passing
your written test as soon as practical. If you are still worried
after that (it will include a lot of flight planning stuff) then ask
me the question again, and we'll discuss it.

Michael

[Brian[_1_]]

I think you sort of anwered you own question by the "I don't use these
on a typical flight"

I like to think of it like learning Algebra. You don't do all that
homework to learn how to do homework.
You do it so that you have repeated the processes enough that you
retain them.

Actually you probably do use much of what you did on a typical flight
or at least you should.
While you won't do them in detail you will use much the same processes
on a larger scale.

Here are some things I think you should be doing on typical flights
after you get your rating..
Figuring how much endurance do you have. (Fuel - Hours)
Figuring Magnetic Headings for your destination.
Figuring long will it take to get to your destination.
Checking your route and progress with check points. (You hopefully
don't just blindly follow the GPS)
Recalculate the above in the air if your destination changes.

True GPS's can make most of these easy, But I have had 3 GPS's fail on
me. Two were actual GPS Failures the 3rd was a Notamed outage of the
GPS Signal.

The point being you never know when you might have to find a pencil
and map and figure out where you are and where you are going. It is a
skill you should be able to do, which is why we teach it and make you
practice it over and over again as a student. It is up to you to stay
profecient at them after you become a licensed pilot.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Andy Lutz]

Thanks for the encouragement. I did sound a bit scared as I read my first
post. I have heard about most of the things you mentioned in my reading. I
got the test booklet from ASA last year and have read it through a few
times. Without the instructor walking with me through it too, it was
sounding rather complicated to do spur of the moment. But now that I have a
CFI to help explain things one concept at a time, and train to competence as
I need it, I should do much better.

I guess I'm feeling that more may be expected of me than I think I can do.
My instructor, a MCFI, by the way, I trust implicitly. He told me after my
last lesson that most people take their check ride at 65-70 hours and he
thought I may be ready at 50 or less. That is scary too. But as I said, I
trust him and he won't push me beyond what I'm ready for. I want to push out
of my mind that 50 hour comment and not expect anything like it, but it
threatens to hang aroung and plump my ego, and there is no room for an ego
in those small cockpits. I haven't soloed yet and I think I still have a way
to go. I expect I'l be sharing about that here when the time comes.

OK, for now, just breathe! Take lessons one at a time. I'll worry about not
learning what I've been taught, after I've been taught it.

-Andy

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 13, 12:16 pm, "Andy Lutz" > wrote:
>> This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training
>
> When I was 9 hours into my PPL training, this would have sounded way
> overwhelming to me too. At that point, I hadn't even learned to land
> an airplane reliably under optimal conditions. At the 60-70 hour
> mark, it didn't seem so bad at all.
>
> When I was 9 hours into my multiengine training, I could barely land
> the airplane single engine. At the 25 hour mark, a partial panel
> single engine NDB approach with circle to land on a short runway
> seemed no big deal.
>
> Trust me, it gets better. Look at the PTS if you like, but realize
> much of it may not make sense just yet. Many instructors believe in
> trotting out the PTS from day one, to keep your eyes on the prize, I
> suppose. I don't think much of that strategy. The PTS is a test
> standard, not a training syllabus. Your instructor has (I assume) a
> training syllabus. Many fine ones are commercially available, and
> many flight schools have their own. By the time you get to the end of
> the syllabus, the things I discuss will not seem so overwhelming.
>
>> but is
>> this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have
>> lots
>> to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight
>> planning,
>> what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
>> scared me.
>
> I'm sorry I scared you. That was not the intent. The intent was to
> explain to another instructor what I thought was missing in his
> asessment of the utility of manual (as opposed to automated) flight
> planning. I would be more than a bit surprised if, at 9 hours, you
> were exposed to most of the concepts I discussed. That will come.
> Right now, those are not your big issues. The only navigation I would
> teach a student at your level is basic pilotage and map reading. I
> wouldn't expect you to be venturing more than 10-20 miles from home
> just yet. At this stage of the game, you need to be focusing on
> aircarft control through the flight envelope, flight with reference to
> the ground, and basic takeoff and landing skills. If you're really
> sharp, you might just be soloing - but that would be unusual these
> days.
>
> Since you have already started flying, consider taking and passing
> your written test as soon as practical. If you are still worried
> after that (it will include a lot of flight planning stuff) then ask
> me the question again, and we'll discuss it.
>
> Michael
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-13 15:18:30 -0700, said:

>
>
>> destination into a machine and letting it do the flight plan breeds a
>> little too much complacency. Putting a little thought into your routing
>> can yield great rewards.
>
> Yeah, true. I am still quite bad at doing it the old fashioned way
> (even after passing a checkride) but I still take the trouble to do it
> that way because it feels more rewarding. Besides, just using the GPS
> makes it a bit like flying in a simulator. However I do find it hard
> to do a diversion to an unknown airport and fold the chart to draw an
> imaginary line, figure out a new heading, correct for wind etc. I tend
> to cheat in that situation and get help from flight following or rely
> on the GPS if I have one.

Why do you do it that way? Too much time with head down in the cockpit.
I just look for a major feature near the airport (or on the way to it)
and turn toward it. I've got a pretty rough idea of how far it is.

How do you think examiners know if the candidate got it right? They
know that the diversion airport is that-a-way. At any time during the
flight, I know which airport I would divert to and what direction I
would turn to get there. Trying to figure it out when you already have
an emergency is too late.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-13 10:16:50 -0700, "Andy Lutz" > said:

> This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
> this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
> to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
> what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
> scared me.

A diversion should be relatively easy. Just get in the habit every time
you fly of thinking, "If I had to go somewhere else, where would it be,
how would I get there, and how long would it take?" Then, when you
actually do divert, the only thing left is to set up the radios. By the
time you are ready for the check ride it will be so ingrained that it
should be practically automatic.

I have known students who had to divert on their first solo! You would
think three times around the pattern would be easy enough, but airports
do close. :-) Wayne Perry, former CEO of AT&T Wireless and one of the
prime movers in the cell phone industry, told me that he had to do just
that on his first solo at Renton Airport more than 20 years ago. After
he did his first touch and go, a Beech twin managed to land gear up on
the runway (bet it was the flaps/gear thing, eh?). Wayne not only had
to divert to Boeing Field, he had to come back several hours later to
pick up his instructor! (Things were a little different in those days.)

>
> What does a typical checkride look like?

Pretty friendly as a rule. Some examiners are more business-like than
others. He asks you the same stuff your instructor keeps asking you.
Then you go fly and demonstrate the same stuff you had to demonstrate
to your instructor. Then you go home, probably end with some sort of
simulated emergency, fill out a little paperwork, wait for the examiner
to leave and do your victory dance.

>
> BTW, I hope to learn HOW to do manual flight planning and not count on
> electronic planners, but in practice I expect to use many means to plan XCs
> in addition to knowing HOW.

You bet. Use everything at your disposal. If the examiner says,
"Divert!" and he doesn't shut off the GPS, then by all means use the
GPS. Really, it is not difficult. If you are having trouble with it,
this is the place to ask questions. But wait until you are studying
diversions, of course.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-13 15:21:11 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>>
>> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
>> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
>> navigation logs?
>
> Hey, what have you got against sextants!?
>
> (I finished reading "Fate is the Hunter" a couple weeks ago.)
>
> Frankly I don't trust any method that involves pens or pencils - the pens
> are likely to run out of ink at the worst time and I always manage to break
> the points on the pencils.
>
> ;-)

Having used a sextant, I have to say that they are extremely accurate.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> > This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
> >
> > How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> > traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> > navigation logs?
>
> Hey, what have you got against sextants!?

Sextant? You had a sextant? When I was a kid, we thought we were lucky if
we had an astrolabe.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hi Andrew;
Although its true that once we get out into the big bad world with our
new pilotcertificates, for simple point to point VFR, a lot of us end up
making sure we have enough fuel, then take off and fly the line from A
to B that we stole from the nearest VOR which gives us a magnetic course
that we correct for wind into a true heading as we go. :-))
I'm from the old school that believes you don't use the shortcuts unless
you know how to plan it the LONG way. I have always taught navigation
from scratch from the wind triangle onward.
I had a student who told me it was sort of like his Pharmacy degree. You
go to school for years and learn how to use a tub and pestle to ground
the right powder and ingredients into the right prescription, then the
first thing you do on graduation is buy a drug store; count pills into a
container, and make tons of money!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?
>
> During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
> elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
> boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
> each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
> wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
> the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
> required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
> compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
> religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
> ground speed.
>
> All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
> online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
> online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
> is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.
>
> I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
> teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
> see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
> a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
> addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
> organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
> cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.
>
> So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> overlooking?
>

[Roy Smith]

When I was a student, we laboriously filled out flight logs and worked out
each leg with an E6B. What stupidity.

Obviously, the modern way (and a perfectly reasonable way) is to let a
computer crunch the numbers for you. But, you still should be able to do
an entire flight plan with nothing more than a chart, a plotter, and an E6B
in under 5 minutes.

Measure the total overall distance of your route. In these days of
GPS-direct, that usually means a single straight line. If you're flying
VOR to VOR, it's really easy to just add up the distances marked on an IFR
en-route chart.

Next, get a magnetic course. You could do this with a plotter, or just
look at a VOR rose and make a reasonable guess (if you get it to within 10
degrees, you're fine).

Next, look at the winds aloft forecasts along your route of flight and
planned altitude. Take a WAG at an average speed and direction. Do NOT do
any math. Just average them in your head. If you spend more than 30
seconds on this, you're working too hard.

Now, work one single E6B wind triangle problem to come up with an average
GS for the whole flight. Flip the E6B over and work one single
time-speed-distance problem to come up with a ETE.

That's it, you're done. Lots of guessing and rough averaging, but that's
really all the problem deserves.

[Steven Barnes]

When I took my Commercial ride last year, I showed my DE a flight plan from
DUATS. Had all the waypoints, winds, magnetic variation stuff, ground
speeds, etc. He then proceeded to ask, "How did the computer come up with
all that? What does each of those things mean?" I basically had to
demonstrate the first couple legs with a plotter & E6B to show I understood
the "traditional" stuff going on behind the scenes.


"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
> >
> > How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> > traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> > navigation logs?
>> [snip]
> >
> > So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> > by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> > overlooking?
> >
>
> The number one reason - the students will have no idea how to do it and
> what is involved in planninng a flight. Show them all of it. Besides,
> what do you think the examiner is going to say if they can;t figure out
> how to do any of that stuff and the student says, "Oh I just use a
> computer for that. My instructor says paper and pencils and those
> things are useless these days." ?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 13, 11:48 am, "Michael" >
wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> > So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
> > by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
> > overlooking?
>
> I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
> diversion.
>

Thanks for pointing out diversion. But I would consider that to be an
argument against doing extensive paper calculations. Diversion is not
done with an E6B, plotter and a flight log. It is done by taking a wag
at the course and distance, making a reasonable assumption about wind
and variation and coming up with rough heading and time. Then we use
pilotage to make refinements along the way. So the original question
still remains. Why not do all ground planning by computer, and if
anything unusual happens during flight, fly it like a diversion?

To reiterate, I am not claiming one way is better than the other; I am
simply bringing this up as a discussion topic. It is important to
understand why we teach certain things. Most aeronautical information
is simply passed down from one CFI to the next, and many things are
done by habit instead of reason. I have yet to see a convincing
argument for the pen & paper method, except for claims that it is
'basic information all pilots should know'.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> So the original question
> still remains. Why not do all ground planning by computer, and if
> anything unusual happens during flight, fly it like a diversion?

What if it /wasn't/ necessary to fly it like a simple diversion? What
if, say, a WAG puts you 10 miles short of an otherwise closer field
because of headwinds (speaking of WAG's....), when a proper overview and
plan would take you to a farther, but downwind 'drome?

I believe the point is that if you're very proficient with paper
planning, it can be very fast and more accurate than winging it and
allowing a computer to come up with your (now rather useless) original plan.

> I have yet to see a convincing
> argument for the pen & paper method, except for claims that it is
> 'basic information all pilots should know'.

I think the hypothetical has been posted previously by someone else, but
try to place yourself into a position where you have no
computer/Internet access/electricity; will you still be able to handle
the planning and duties necessary to create and file a plan without
computational assistance and in a reasonable timeframe (ie, before your
briefing expires)?

Will you understand why each number goes in each box, what it means to
your flight, and how you should use it? Will you have enough confidence
in your performance data to trust yourself to get to the next airport?

Planning, like most things in aviation is "use it or lose it", like
following the direct-to all your life and then being told to make an NDB
circle-to-land. Will you be as fresh and up to date with the procedure
if you practice it regularly, or if you allow yourself to fall into
complacency by trusting the information (both in veracity and in it's
availability)?

TheSmokingGnu

[Roy Smith]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> Diversion is not done with an E6B, plotter and a flight log. It is done
> by taking a wag at the course and distance, making a reasonable
> assumption about wind and variation and coming up with rough heading and
> time.

Pilotage and DR seem to be the most neglected skills among the pilots I fly
with. On a BFR, I'll usually find out where they normally fly, and take
them off in a different direction, then give them a diversion. It always
amazes me how poorly people do at this. It's not just a PTS exercise, it's
the fundamental ability to figure out where you are, where you want to go,
and how to get there.

I watch this scenario play out all the time. I ask, "how long will it take
to get there?". They look at the chart, appear to be summoning up the
wisdom of long dead spirits, and guess, "10 minutes". It's often painful
to get them to actually measure the distance (even if it's just estimating
how many 20-mile wide VOR compass roses they can lay down along the route),
estimate our airspeed (even if it's just "about 2 miles a minute"), and do
one simple math problem to come up with a number of minutes.

And, then, once I beat that out of them, I try to get them to look at their
watch, figure out what time it is now, add the ETE to that, and come up
with when we should be there.

Now, here's the kicker. Let's say they come up with 10 minutes. We go
along for 3 or 4 minutes and I say, "Are we there yet, or have we passed it
already?" It is astounding how few can come up with, "I estimated 10
minutes and we've been flying for 4, so it's got to still be in front of
us". Sometimes, I'll watch the airport slide by, give it a few more
minutes, and ask the same question, with similarly disappointing results.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-12 22:28:59 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" > said:

> This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.
>
> How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
> traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
> navigation logs?

I would expect a student to be proficient at electronic flight
planning. There are so many tools availabe, many of them free, that
there is no reason not to be.

However, a student should understand manual flight planning well enough
to be able to calculate drift, groundspeed, etc. The fact is, someone
proficient with an E6B will always be faster than someone with a
calculator. The E6B does an excellent job at depicting the effect of
winds visually as well.

One bad tendency I have noticed with a calculator is that calculators
usually display a level of precision, such as seconds or tenths of a
mile, that is pure fantasy. I teach students to round everything at
least to the nearest minute and mile. You could probably round
everything to five minutes and ten miles and not lose anything
significant.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 13, 8:40 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out diversion. But I would consider that to be an
> argument against doing extensive paper calculations. Diversion is not
> done with an E6B, plotter and a flight log. It is done by taking a wag
> at the course and distance, making a reasonable assumption about wind
> and variation and coming up with rough heading and time.

First off, it depends on the diversion. Not every diversion is
complete in a matter of minutes, although that is the only kind that
gets tested on the checkride. In the real world of flying VFR XC, you
may well find yourself diverting to an airport 100+ miles away. Maybe
it's to go around weather you didn't expect, maybe it's because
headwinds are greater than anticipated and suitable airports are not
so close together as one might like, maybe it's because a TFR popped
up. In those cases, you should do at least a little calculating.

But even a short range diversion is done by approximating the steps
that are fully computed in paper flight planning. Now the problem is
that most people have a difficult time approximating something they
never really learned to do exactly. See Roy's response on this - and
I've had the same experience he has. People get out of the habit of
doing the full procedure, and then when they need to do an
abbreviated, approximate procedure they can't do that either. The
ability to take a wag at the course and distance quickly and
accurately really only comes from having computed it multiple times
and observed patterns.

If it were up to me, we would go back to the 30 minute XC plan. That
would force the student to keep drilling for speed, and through sheer
repetition he would start gettting a feel for what the results ought
to be.

> So the original question
> still remains. Why not do all ground planning by computer, and if
> anything unusual happens during flight, fly it like a diversion?

Because if you can't do the steps on paper, on the ground, what makes
you think you can do them even approximately in flight?

> It is important to
> understand why we teach certain things. Most aeronautical information
> is simply passed down from one CFI to the next, and many things are
> done by habit instead of reason.

I agree. And there are things that I think could be safely dropped
from the paper planning process. Compass deviation? Trying to
correct out those sub-5-degree errors by looking at a whiskey compass
bouncing around in the turbulence? Get real. It may have made sense
in the days of dead reckoning hundreds of miles at a time, but those
days are gone. These days, we dead reckon at most 50 miles.

And the moronic triple-interpolation for takeoff and landing distance
in those Cessna books? Waste of time. Round up the temperature and
altitude, round down the pressure, and call it good. Gives you a
little cushion (little enough, the way most rentals are maintained).

But the fundamentals - choosing checkpoints, correcting heading for
wind and magnetic variation, estimating climb fuel and cruise fuel -
you have to know these things.

> I have yet to see a convincing
> argument for the pen & paper method, except for claims that it is
> 'basic information all pilots should know'.

Well, it is. Because without it, the approximate methods used in a
diversion will be meaningless (since the student won't understand what
he is approximating) and thus quickly forgotten. Not that I'm sure
this isn't happening already.

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 03/13/07 16:57, Andy Lutz wrote:
> Thanks for the encouragement. I did sound a bit scared as I read my first
> post. I have heard about most of the things you mentioned in my reading. I
> got the test booklet from ASA last year and have read it through a few
> times. Without the instructor walking with me through it too, it was
> sounding rather complicated to do spur of the moment. But now that I have a
> CFI to help explain things one concept at a time, and train to competence as
> I need it, I should do much better.
>
> I guess I'm feeling that more may be expected of me than I think I can do.
> My instructor, a MCFI, by the way, I trust implicitly. He told me after my
> last lesson that most people take their check ride at 65-70 hours and he
> thought I may be ready at 50 or less. That is scary too. But as I said, I
> trust him and he won't push me beyond what I'm ready for. I want to push out
> of my mind that 50 hour comment and not expect anything like it, but it
> threatens to hang aroung and plump my ego, and there is no room for an ego
> in those small cockpits.

Perhaps you should mention to him how is comment affected you. If you would
have done better without it, he should know. Consider it "constructive criticism" ;-)

> I haven't soloed yet and I think I still have a way
> to go. I expect I'l be sharing about that here when the time comes.
>
> OK, for now, just breathe! Take lessons one at a time. I'll worry about not
> learning what I've been taught, after I've been taught it.

Best of luck, and please keep posting.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Gary[_2_]]

> Sextant? You had a sextant? When I was a kid, we thought we were lucky if
> we had an astrolabe.

You had stars?

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Michael > wrote:
> The
> ability to take a wag at the course and distance quickly and
> accurately really only comes from having computed it multiple times
> and observed patterns.

> If it were up to me, we would go back to the 30 minute XC plan. That
> would force the student to keep drilling for speed, and through sheer
> repetition he would start gettting a feel for what the results ought
> to be.

When I was doing my cross-country work, I planned WAY more cross-country
trips than I actually went on. Most of the trips got cancelled due to
weather. This worked in my favor, in the long run, because I got exactly
that repeated drilling in the process.

When checkride time came, I had no problem planning the trip (granted, the
DE gave me the destination a few days in advance, but I actually planned
it that morning, with current weather). And the cross-country part of the
written exam was a snap, too.

> I agree. And there are things that I think could be safely dropped
> from the paper planning process. Compass deviation? Trying to
> correct out those sub-5-degree errors by looking at a whiskey compass
> bouncing around in the turbulence? Get real. It may have made sense
> in the days of dead reckoning hundreds of miles at a time, but those
> days are gone. These days, we dead reckon at most 50 miles.

The deviation cards in the planes I trained in had very small corrections
-- smaller than my ability to hold a heading at the time. When I
explained that to my CFI, he didn't hassle me about not having deviation
figures in my flight plan. Not to mention, of course, that the
actual-vs-forecast winds would probably impact my course by more than the
deviation anyhow, in a random direction, which basically makes the
deviation figures noise unless they're significant.

> And the moronic triple-interpolation for takeoff and landing distance
> in those Cessna books? Waste of time. Round up the temperature and
> altitude, round down the pressure, and call it good. Gives you a
> little cushion (little enough, the way most rentals are maintained).

Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
do I need", it's "is the runway long enough". In a rental, if you're so
close you need to do exact interpolation, then the runway is already not
long enough.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student C J Campbell > wrote:
> One bad tendency I have noticed with a calculator is that calculators
> usually display a level of precision, such as seconds or tenths of a
> mile, that is pure fantasy. I teach students to round everything at
> least to the nearest minute and mile. You could probably round
> everything to five minutes and ten miles and not lose anything
> significant.

One of the hazards of calculators, and of electronic computation in
general. Nobody understands the concept of "significant digits" any more.
Just last week, I saw somebody build a spreadsheet with single-digit
input, but triple-digit comparisons in the output. I had to explain that
there was no way that "4.89" and "5.12" were actually different results,
and that there was no reason to prefer one over the other based on those
calculations.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[John Galban]

On Mar 14, 7:32 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> However, a student should understand manual flight planning well enough
> to be able to calculate drift, groundspeed, etc. The fact is, someone
> proficient with an E6B will always be faster than someone with a
> calculator. The E6B does an excellent job at depicting the effect of
> winds visually as well.
>

When I learned manual flight planning, the aim was to teach me how
to perform the measurements and calculations by hand. By doing this,
I understood the concepts involved in plotting a course, figuring wind
drift, magnetic variation, speed and time. Somehow I think that
plugging a few data points into a program and looking at the results
would not accomplish that goal. It's analagous to handing a third
grader a calculator, and telling them not to worry about learning math
by hand. By plugging the proper numbers into the calculator, they'll
get the right answer, but will miss out on much of the theory behind
that answer.

By the way, when I took my PPL check ride back in the dark ages, I
was expected to do more than just give the examiner a WAG on the
diversion. I had to turn towards the alternate using a WAG, then
come up with the actual course, distance and time to the new
airport. In a real life weather diversion, given the possibility of
reduced visibility or low ceilings, the accuracy of that calculation
could mean the difference between arriving, or flying past the
alternate.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Stan Prevost]

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
> do I need", it's "is the runway long enough".

There's a difference?

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Stan Prevost > wrote:

> "Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
> > do I need", it's "is the runway long enough".

> There's a difference?

Sort of. It's not like you're going to go out and buy a runway that's
1,542 feet long. You're trying to figure out if you can safely use,
say, a 2,000 foot runway.

So if you're looking at an answer that's in the 1,500-foot range, you
don't need to get it exactly. And if the answer is in the 2,500-foot
range, you need to do something drastic.

So you don't need to interpolate from the tables. Round everything up,
and if it still fits, great. If it doesn't fit, but it's close, MAYBE you
should go back and do a more precise calculation. Or maybe you should
think about reducing fuel, or cargo, or waiting for a colder day.

If the rounded-up answer is 1,700 feet, and the "right" answer is 1,461
feet, it's not like you're going to pay extra for the "extra" 239 feet.
You might relax a little more, but either way you'll get off the runway
OK.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Andrey Serbinenko]

Completely agree with this. One other point I might add is that by
blindly using a calculator or some program that does all the computations
for you, it is very easy to become a victim of a "garbage in - garbage out"
scenario. I've seen this happen more than once: people would plug in some
numbers, get some numbers back, and just take those numbers as the answer,
even though they're completely wrong because of an error made in the input.
When you do things by hand, you get a much better feel for how sane your
results are, because you see all the intermediate steps, and there's many
more places that would raise a red flag for you if you made a mistake.
Besides, I could never fully trust the completeness and correctness of the
airnav data that online planners use: after all, if one blunders into a
restricted airspace, or scratches a mountainside because of an error in
such a planner's database, that would be pretty sad, and totally that
person's responsibility.

Andrey


In rec.aviation.piloting Alan Gerber > wrote:
> One of the hazards of calculators, and of electronic computation in
> general. Nobody understands the concept of "significant digits" any more.
> Just last week, I saw somebody build a spreadsheet with single-digit
> input, but triple-digit comparisons in the output. I had to explain that
> there was no way that "4.89" and "5.12" were actually different results,
> and that there was no reason to prefer one over the other based on those
> calculations.
>
> ... Alan

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 15, 3:12 pm, Andrey Serbinenko >
wrote:
> Completely agree with this. One other point I might add is that by
> blindly using a calculator or some program that does all the computations
> for you, it is very easy to become a victim of a "garbage in - garbage out"
> scenario. I've seen this happen more than once: people would plug in some
> numbers, get some numbers back, and just take those numbers as the answer,
> even though they're completely wrong because of an error made in the input.
> When you do things by hand, you get a much better feel for how sane your
> results are, because you see all the intermediate steps, and there's many
> more places that would raise a red flag for you if you made a mistake.
> Besides, I could never fully trust the completeness and correctness of the
> airnav data that online planners use: after all, if one blunders into a
> restricted airspace, or scratches a mountainside because of an error in
> such a planner's database, that would be pretty sad, and totally that
> person's responsibility.
>
> Andrey
>


As I mentioned in a related post, I once had a student who painstaking
did all the calculations by hand, but everything was reversed by 180-
degrees. It was because he was so caught up with measuring the chart
and operating the E6B that he missed the big picture. One could argue
that had he done it by computer, his brain might have been more
relaxted to catch that sort of mistakes.


Your point about the accuracy of the online data is a valid point.
One cannot be sure if the chart on your screen is the latest version
and if it contains all the updates. However, that would only become a
problem if you don't carry a real chart with you during flight. Even
if the online planner routed you through a restricted airspace, you
should be able to catch it during flight.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> As I mentioned in a related post, I once had a student who painstaking
> did all the calculations by hand, but everything was reversed by 180-
> degrees. It was because he was so caught up with measuring the chart
> and operating the E6B that he missed the big picture.
>
Isn't "the big picture" in this case learning how to navigate? Is not
checking your results and becoming aware that something is wrong is a part
of that process?

> One could argue
> that had he done it by computer, his brain might have been more
> relaxted to catch that sort of mistakes.
>
Or, more likely, the computer would have provided a solution that the
student would have accepted as unquestionably as the result that was 180º
off. That the computer may have given a correct answer is not really
evidence that the student has learned anything. Watch a cashier insist
that the change for your purchase *should* be more than the cost of the
item, and you'll know what I mean. ;-)

regards,

Neil

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-14 17:45:14 -0700, "John Galban" > said:

>
>
> By the way, when I took my PPL check ride back in the dark ages, I
> was expected to do more than just give the examiner a WAG on the
> diversion. I had to turn towards the alternate using a WAG, then
> come up with the actual course, distance and time to the new
> airport. In a real life weather diversion, given the possibility of
> reduced visibility or low ceilings, the accuracy of that calculation
> could mean the difference between arriving, or flying past the
> alternate.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

The check ride hasn't changed since you took it (at least in that
respect). The method of coming up with the actual course, distance and
time might have change, though. We no longer use leagues for distance,
for example. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jose]

> One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not
> equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics.

True, but it is possible (easy in fact) to use the computer without the
slightest understanding of what it is doing. It is less possible to
successfully plan a flight with pencil and paper and no understanding.

> where they compared students who learned to fly in
> glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments

The methodology of the study and exactly what is being measured is
important to interpret the results.

btw, I have almost a thousand hours and still fill in the little boxes
by hand.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.