On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:03:42 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

"it" you mean "why you feel that using flight planning software is a
necessity".

I don't believe it is for those who fear it, or can't afford it. For
those of us who have it, I believe we should use it. I believe if more
used it there would be fewer problems. Ever meet somebody who run out of
fuel due to an error? I did, landed in the field next to my house.
Fortunately he didn't damage the plane. Who can say for sure if the
computer would have helped, I think it might have. We put gas in the
plane, pushed him to the road and he flew to the airport 3 miles away.

Just how slow do you think my telephone is? Beyond that, you cannot rely on
fuel information obtained online anyway.

I think voice is slower than computer, especially when you have to look up
the phone number. The other guy said airnav.com shows the data, I already
posted that my software uses airnav as a basis for airport information
regarding fuel pricing. Since you have never used my software you don't
understand why it's easier. Using airnav you have to enter the airport
id. My software shows a real chart with my flight path overlaid. I click
on an airport and get all the information about it without having to type
anything. So it's easier. Just because I use software does not mean I
don't know what that chart looks like, the screen is 100% exactly like a
chart, it is a chart, including WAC, SAC, TAC, and IFR enroute charts,
though I'm not IFR and don't use them much. If there's an error on the
paper chart, it's on my electronic chart because they are from the same
source, the colors are the same. The only thing missing are the rips that
happen after you fold the chart 3 times.

But more importantly, ALL FSS's can give me exactly the same information,

I believe this is supposed to be how it works, but regardless of that I
have been told to call other FSS's on a regular basis. I have had the
local FSS not tell me of a TFR that existed that my software pointed out
in it's briefing. I know how things are supposed to work, and I know how
they really work. I suspect that it has to do with their data entry being
in error, but I don't know for sure.

numbers. Only a human briefer can educate you regarding local conditions
and weather patterns.

I agree, and as I said I talk to them as well for their take on things,
read back a couple posts and you'll see I said that.

exactly that right up front. Just get off your high horse and quit
insisting that those of us that don't use flight planning software are
somehow neglecting our responsibilities as PIC.

You have misunderstood from the very beginning and for some reason thought
I meant you personally, I did not, I said so several times that this was
not directed towards you. You twist everything around so that it pertains
to yourself, it does not. You don't even have a vested interest in this
thread and for some reason have decided to tell those of us who use it
that doing manually is best. You're no different than I, you have your
point of view and I mine. I would not post my ideas in a different thread
because then it would apply to everybody. In this thread with it's
heading, only pilots who use software are answering. Or so I shall assume
because that's the point of the thread. It is not a manual vs electronic
thread.

This thread should not even interest you since you obviously believe
anybody who uses such software is a dolt and can't do it the manual way.
You don't use it, so how can you answer the question "What flight planning
software do you use?". You can't, you have no valid input in that regards
since you don't use software. Your only input is that software is not
needed and you should be able to do it manually. I would agree with that
statement as basically sound, but it does not answer the question this
thread was based on.

You belong to the old club, I to the new club. You and I will never see
eye to eye on software to make the job easier as you believe it's easy
enough as is. I agree it's not hard to do it manually, but I know for a
fact I can get the same information without human error introduced faster
by using the computer. I use a hybrid of the two because I do not
completely trust either human or computer when it comes to my life.

If you consider the fact that I use both, then you will begin to see where
you have been confused by my seeming inconsistencies. They're not because
I use both ways all the time. When I plan a flight on my computer it's no
different than how I would do it on paper. For a long trip I get out a
WAC and figure a path. Then I transfer it to charts, electronic charts
and then I save it. I then get a briefing and compare the results to my
expected results and modify accordingly. This is done using charts, but
their electronic. They look the same, contain the same info. The only
difference is that I can access information about that route
electronically and play what if's faster. I do not let the computer
choose my route based on anything, I plan it out using charts just like
you do, but my charts are in a digital format. If your paper chart had a
missing dot on the letter I, then so too would mine.

The computer does not remove me from planning, I use exactly the same
steps you do, but my steps are done first via computer and then I copy by
hand the plan and alternates to my paper chart which I use in the plane.

We differ in that I believe people should use it if they can. I have said
I don't expect them to go out and buy it, but if they have it they need to
use it.

Anyhow, you and I have hijacked this thread long enough, it's not supposed
to be a manual vs electronic planning thread. It's supposed to answer the
question of what flight planning software do you use. I have answered
that in a previous posting.

My concession to you is that I agree pilots should be able to obtain the
same information manually. I will continue to get it electronically and
verify and expound via abbreviated briefings.