If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I would say that is increasingly a NE issue. In the SE boonies (south
of the Wash ADIZ), once they see /G, they tend to clear you direct *independent* of your plan. In FL my experience is that you will be initially cleared on airways then either thru request or offer, you can get direct for many portions. Leave the busier FL airspace and it's "cleared direct destination". I guess it's fewer words to say or something. Amazing! Doug Vetter wrote: FYI, if you want to plan / file direct VFR, fine. But don't try that IFR -- particularly in the northeast. It irritates the controllers, and no surprise. The AIM specifies that you should file airways (sorry I don't have the exact reference handy...but just read Don Brown's columns on Avweb for more info). The entire ATC system (airspace boundaries, etc.) are based on the airway system, and when you file direct, you increase controller workload. Given the shortage of controllers, that's just about the last thing you should do. -Doug -- -------------------- Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA http://www.dvcfi.com -------------------- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Maule Driver" wrote in message . com... Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the kind of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning purposes. I always do a PLOG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
... Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going more than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts your liberty to fly where you want. [...] As has been pointed out, if the requirement is only to file, that's hardly an inconvenience with respect to flying where you want to. Even if you are required to have an active flight plan, diversions are not difficult to deal with. You simply find the nearest FSS frequency, and amend your plan (ETA for sure, route if it's changed significantly enough). I've never run into an FBO that requires flight plans, but if I did, I would pay very close attention to their exact requirements, and what -- if any -- implications it has for insurance coverage. In many cases, the renter's not actually covered by the FBO's insurance anyway, but it's possible that where a renter is covered, and where a "flight plan required" policy is in force, the insurance would be valid only if the flight plan requirement is met. Anyway, I do use VFR flight plans for long cross-country flights, especially if they are over hostile terrain and/or I don't expect to be in radio contact during the flight. Of course, I'm not sure that the question of filing or opening a flight plan is what the original poster had in mind. Pete |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Greg Farris" wrote in message ... Of course, I'm not sure that the question of filing or opening a flight plan is what the original poster had in mind. Pete No, it wasn't what I had in mind. I file flight plans all the time since I do a lot of IFR flying. I was asking about the pre-filing flight planning activities that people engage in. For me that activity is 90% weather. And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor. I have flown there a number of times, usually between Gaithersburg, Reading, East Hampton and Portland (cities where I have family or business) and when I do I file airways, as one other poster suggested. Maybe it is because I don't have enough knowledge of preferred routes in the area, but my experience has been that I never get what I file anyway, and that I usually get at least one or two clearances changes in route. Michael |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote in message
... I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights (two or three hours or so) it can be more than that. I agree, I just don't actively plan for this. I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff? I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow, which I know from experience is very accurate. I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only gives me information after the fact. Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to destination. Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information earlier. I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it. Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own independent failure. If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over 1200 hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and find an airport. VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume. In any case, I don't feel that in-flight is the best time to be "figuring out" where you are. It's MUCH better to already know where you are, and know what your available options are. In the event that things start going wrong in-flight, I would much rather spend my limited attention flying the airplane and dealing with the situation, than to waste time doing work that could have been done on the ground, or as the flight progressed. It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at any time anyway. I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled in flight, with very minimal ground planning. All of what? The statement you quoted pertains only to something that has to be done in flight. I would argue that not only can it easily be handled in flight, it can ONLY be handled in flight. But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check against, and that requires preflight action. It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an arrival somewhere else while enroute. IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous. Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC, but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots? How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the flight. Sometimes the route simply cannot be done with reasonably assurance of safe landing sites, which is what I described as "hostile terrain" in a previous post. It doesn't mean I won't fly over those areas, necessarily, but it does mean I take extra precautions and I at least am aware of the section(s) of the route that will require even greater vigilance with respect to engine monitoring and careful identification of even the most marginal-but-doable emergency landing site (you'd be surprised at what can be found even in hostile terrain, if you're looking for it). In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the terrain beyond some general altitude information. Dumb. Dumb. DUMB! Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to know what the ground is like along their route. You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available. You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far away from any services. There's just too much information available from VFR charts for any pilot with any sense of self-preservation and who takes the charge of "pilot in command" seriously to ignore that information. Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry. What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123 is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..." It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of "planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during the flight. Don't forget, many aircraft accidents happened only because the pilot was distracted from the duty of controlling the aircraft. Anything you can do to minimize the distractions while flying the aircraft, you should. This definitely includes proper and thorough pre-flight planning. Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually checking waypoints make? Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available. Duh. Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel. Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof (subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information than are available is bad. Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or similar, and that you can contact them from your position. Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane. I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"? Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature. I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was accurate. How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were cross-checking? But, once again, even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held backup failed, and the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so I couldn't get vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in the US without seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip. So your plan is to just keep heading in a specific direction until you see an airport? That's not much of a plan, IMHO. I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane the geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by technology. IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously. Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of silicon. Pete |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote in message
... [...] And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor. Most of the people haven't even said where they fly. How is that clear to you? For what it's worth, I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the bulk of my cross-country flying is done in the western states. The planning is different from that used in densely populated areas, but just as important. Pete |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Michael 182" wrote in message ... I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights (two or three hours or so) it can be more than that. I agree, I just don't actively plan for this. I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff? No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints enroute. I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow, which I know from experience is very accurate. I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only gives me information after the fact. I don't understand this comment. Obviously I plan, at least in my head, fuel flow and distance. But this is not very extensive planning - in fact it is almost second nature. I'm filing IFR, and I have to give time enroute and fuel on board as two of the items in the plan. Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to destination. Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information earlier. That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within 10%. During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of respect for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done in my head. I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it. Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own independent failure. VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume. Come on, I have dual in-panel navigation and two levels of battery backup with a Pilot III and a battery operated NavCom. And, as a way last resort, I have a cell phone. Yes, anything could happen, but I don't see how pre-flight planning will help me here if everything went south, which, once again, I just don't believe will happen. There is too much redundancy here. If I was in VMC, there is really no emergency. Fly until I find an airport and land. Virtually every midsize town (and most small towns) in the west has an airport. If I was in IMC I fail to see how doing extensive pre-flight route planning would help. I know where I am while I'm flying from the GPS. If and when it goes out (and the handheld goes out...) I'll know where I am at that point. Assuming I still have the radios, or the handheld NavCom I'll contact ATC and get assistance. If I don't have any communications or Nav equipment, I may be in for a lot of trouble. but remember, I'm IMC at this point. I don't believe that pre-flight planning of waypoints will be a lot of help at this point... But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check against, and that requires preflight action. Uh, no. That's what having on-board navigation equipment allows you to do. It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an arrival somewhere else while enroute. IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous. Sorry, I disagree. Once again, I spend as much time as is necessary to fully brief myself and make weather decisions. I make a quick ETE and fuel plan with a very wide margin for error. I have invested in equipment and backup, and know how to use them very well. I don't see this as sloppy or dangerous. In fact, I believe it makes for much safer enroute environment than extensive plotting on charts. Having said that, I fully respect pilotage, and do not consider those that use it unsafe - they just fly with different parameters than I do. Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC, but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots? How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the flight. So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window for a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous. Sectionals give very broad altitude and terrain information. There is no way you will have time during a true emergency to use them or your preflight planning of emergency landing spots. You will look down, pick a spot, and follow the emergency checklist. At least I hope you will. I have had two in-flight emergencies, one in IMC. Preflight route planning would have had absolutely no impact on the situations. Having emergency checklists memorized and concentration on flying the plane was completely the key. In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the terrain beyond some general altitude information. Dumb. Dumb. DUMB! Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to know what the ground is like along their route. Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid open water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest is flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are pointy. Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional to know this stuff. You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available. You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far away from any services. Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals. Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry. What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123 is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..." It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of "planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during the flight. I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I do it all the time. Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually checking waypoints make? Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available. Duh. Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel. You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US. Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof (subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information than are available is bad. Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however that is spelled) as well. Do you do that? And, more reasonably, by your reasoning you should clearly invest in better and safer technology than you have. Anything else is clearly unsafe. The reality is there is no reason for you to do either. You fly to the level of planning and safety that is legal and within your comfort zone. You sound like a prudent pilot. I'm happy to know you are out there flying safely when our paths cross. But your insistence on your particular brand of safety is not convincing me. Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or similar, and that you can contact them from your position. Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane. You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before you take off? I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a restaurant and asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner. I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"? Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature. I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was accurate. How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were cross-checking? I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and see what town it is. I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways, VORs, NDBs, intersections. All easily done in the air. IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously. Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of silicon. I guess we are at the agree to disagree point. I don't see myself abdicating anything. I'm not making any judgments about your level of safety when you fly - other than knowing you spend more time plotting on charts I have no idea if you are a safe pilot of not. But none of your arguments you put forth here convince me that your methodology is safer than mine. In fact, I would argue that the level of redundancy and the experience I have in putting the technology to use might make my methodology safer than yours. But then again, I may be wrong... Pete |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Michael 182 wrote:
I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do? Michael I always do flight plans. I find them interesting. (Yeah, I'm weird, but knowing it is half the battle, right.) Actually, I'm a purist, When I'm flying VFR, I use pilotage and dead reckoning as my primary navigation devices. I feel I failed if I have to refer to my GPS. Flying IFR, I file airways because I like being able to backup the VORs with the GPS. With GPS direct, I have no backup means other than the very cumbersome cross VOR radial. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote: [...] I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff? No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints enroute. [...] Another way of saying this is that roughly estimating these quantities in one's head can be accurate to (say) 25%, which is sufficient for trips that don't have unusual risk characteristics. If the airplane's endurance may get tight, or ground services iffy, then more formal planning may be called for. But at least in my case, that is very rare. You're making a lot of sense on this issue, Michael. - FChE |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Piloting | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:13 PM |
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 04 03:01 PM |
Flight instructors as Charter Pilots | C J Campbell | Piloting | 6 | January 24th 04 07:51 AM |