Flight Planning for Long Trips

One of the things I do when planning a long trip is to plug in the start
and end points into the flight planning software.
In the route portion I place an intermediate airport if the route has to
take a jog left or right for weather or obstacles.
This then gives me the leg distances and times accounting for winds
aloft along the route.
From this information I can set my fuel stops based along with fuel
price information from various sources.

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:38:43 GMT, john smith wrote:

One of the things I do when planning a long trip is to plug in the start
and end points into the flight planning software.
In the route portion I place an intermediate airport if the route has to
take a jog left or right for weather or obstacles.
This then gives me the leg distances and times accounting for winds
aloft along the route.
From this information I can set my fuel stops based along with fuel
price information from various sources.


Same thing I do too...almost exactly...I thought everyone did

I usually use duats for the plan and Airnav for the info....you?

--Don Byrer
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider student, CFI-SEL wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...smack-smack-smack-smack..."

john smith wrote:
One of the things I do when planning a long trip is to plug in the start
and end points into the flight planning software.
In the route portion I place an intermediate airport if the route has to
take a jog left or right for weather or obstacles.
This then gives me the leg distances and times accounting for winds
aloft along the route.
From this information I can set my fuel stops based along with fuel
price information from various sources.

One thing look for is the difference between great circle distance and
actual distance. I have found that small jogs adds surprisingly little
extra distance to the route. An example is the route I take over Lake
Erie to Toronto. A straight line takes me directly over the lake, but a
small jog to Peele Island and then along the shore adds a mere 6 miles
to my total distance.

In article ,
Don Byrer wrote:

Same thing I do too...almost exactly...I thought everyone did
I usually use duats for the plan and Airnav for the info....you?

Yes, DUATS and AIRNAV.

I didn't start doing this until last year because I fly really long
trips (800+ nm) so infrequently. Most of my trips are 300-400 mn, so
three 2-3 hours are my norm. However, in the last 10 years I have made
several trips to Florida from Ohio. The first three trips I have had
such tremendous tailwinds, I decided on the fouth to extend each leg as
much as possible..

Previously, I would just look at the map and pick a spot approximately
the no wind distance I could fly in two hours. Why two hours? After the
first trip with 3.5 hour legs and bladders being strained, the spouse
said two hour legs max in the future. Additionally, now that I have
gotten older, my bladder duration has gotten shorter, so it works out
with proper planning.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
One thing look for is the difference between great circle distance and
actual distance.

It's pretty rare that GC calculations become significant for the kinds of
flights most GA aircraft are capable of making.

I just worked a pretty extreme example: 45N/68W (roughly Bangor, ME) to
45N/92W (roughly Duluth, MN). This is about 1000 miles, beyond the range
of most of our aircraft. It's also a route parallel to the equator, and
further north than most of us fly. All of these are factors that increase
the GC error.

It works out to an initial heading of 279 (true), compared with the
Mercator rhumbline of 270. That's a pretty small difference, and almost
certainly other factors such as terrain, weather, airspace, and possible
alternates are going to be more important.

Put together a few fuel-bounded legs in a row, and then GC starts to become
important for the overall trip (assuming it's mostly east-west).

I programmed a HP 27S calculator for GC navigation. I put
in a departure and destination LAT/LON and it calculates the
CG distance in SM and NM, I input an estimated ground speed
out and back and it gives the equal time point in distance
and time. But I can also enter a series of LON points and
it calculates the LAT for each LON, very handy for reporting
points over-water. I have not gone to the trouble of making
the program "smart" in that I have to know and adjust
courses since the program measures courses east and west of
north.
It also calculates the difference between GC and rhumb line.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
| One thing look for is the difference between great
circle distance and
| actual distance.
|
| It's pretty rare that GC calculations become significant
for the kinds of
| flights most GA aircraft are capable of making.
|
| I just worked a pretty extreme example: 45N/68W (roughly
Bangor, ME) to
| 45N/92W (roughly Duluth, MN). This is about 1000 miles,
beyond the range
| of most of our aircraft. It's also a route parallel to
the equator, and
| further north than most of us fly. All of these are
factors that increase
| the GC error.
|
| It works out to an initial heading of 279 (true), compared
with the
| Mercator rhumbline of 270. That's a pretty small
difference, and almost
| certainly other factors such as terrain, weather,
airspace, and possible
| alternates are going to be more important.
|
| Put together a few fuel-bounded legs in a row, and then GC
starts to become
| important for the overall trip (assuming it's mostly
east-west).

Roy Smith wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
One thing look for is the difference between great circle distance and
actual distance.

It's pretty rare that GC calculations become significant for the kinds of
flights most GA aircraft are capable of making.

I just worked a pretty extreme example: 45N/68W (roughly Bangor, ME) to
45N/92W (roughly Duluth, MN). This is about 1000 miles, beyond the range
of most of our aircraft. It's also a route parallel to the equator, and
further north than most of us fly. All of these are factors that increase
the GC error.

It works out to an initial heading of 279 (true), compared with the
Mercator rhumbline of 270. That's a pretty small difference, and almost
certainly other factors such as terrain, weather, airspace, and possible
alternates are going to be more important.

Put together a few fuel-bounded legs in a row, and then GC starts to become
important for the overall trip (assuming it's mostly east-west).

I think you misunderstood my post. What I was saying that small jogs to
a route does not add much extra distance compared to a straight line
route. I was using the term great circle and straight line
interchangeably, which is true for short distances.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...



I think you misunderstood my post. What I was saying that small jogs to
a route does not add much extra distance compared to a straight line
route. I was using the term great circle and straight line
interchangeably, which is true for short distances.


I agree with that.

Flying to St George, Utah, I can climb over the Las Vegas Class-B, or stay
at a lower altitude and jog around the south margin. The distance increase
in the jog around is only six miles. Fuel- and time-wise, considering the
extra climb, the jog comes out about the same. Most of the times, the winds
aloft make the decision for me.