"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
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