"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