Who does flight plans?

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:01:36 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote in
::

I thought you had to have a navigation aid in your suffix to file direct -
like /G or /R. Aren't you setting yourself up for a problem filing /A and
direct?

You can go direct via dead reckoning with /A.

Maule Driver wrote:
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!

It probably has more to do with traffic count per square mile (and
therefore workload), which is almost always lower in places other than
the northeast. Getting direct may also have something to do with getting
lucky, no matter where you fly.

Don Brown indicates that one of the chief reasons they hate pilots who
file direct (even out in the boonies where radio calls are made every
100 miles) is that if a direct courseline quickly crosses or nears
several sector boundaries (which can happen in both the horizontal or
vertical planes), they have to do tons of point outs and (lacking
successful communication with the neighboring controllers) radar
vectors, reroutes, and other hand-holding that would not have been
necessary had the pilot filed airways and avoided those trouble-spots in
the first place.

That said, on my way down the coast from New Jersey to Florida a couple
weeks ago, I was about 10 miles south of my second departure point
(Newport News, VA) when I was cleared to my destination (N. Myrtle
Beach, Grand Strand) 225NM out -- a personal direct-to distance record
under IFR. Of course, V1 is almost a straight line between the two
airports and more or less equivalent to a direct-to route (thus I was
getting lucky) but in general I agree with you that you are certainly
more likely to get direct in places OTHER than the northeast.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

"Michael 182" wrote

I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan,

I note that in your very first line you've attempted to establish your
premise that flight plans are for the novice or the inept. Not so. I have
many friends with 20K plus hours who fully comprehend the value of a plan.
If you're motoring about with XX hundred or XX thousand in the book, and
sincerely believe that flight plans are for kids, perhaps you are the one
who needs to reevaluate your thought process.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote

I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan,

I note that in your very first line you've attempted to establish your
premise that flight plans are for the novice or the inept. Not so. I
have many friends with 20K plus hours who fully comprehend the value of a
plan. If you're motoring about with XX hundred or XX thousand in the book,
and sincerely believe that flight plans are for kids, perhaps you are the
one who needs to reevaluate your thought process.

Hmmm - I think I write the OP poorly. I file flight plans for almost every
cross country since I fly IFR most of the time. What I was wondering about
was the form of flight planning, which many posts have answered in this
thread.

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
Hmm - maybe this is some of the difference. I don't fly through canyons.
In fact, I usually fly between 15,000 feet and FL 200. [...]

Frankly, if it weren't for your already reasonable reputation around here,
it's at this point that I'd accuse you of being a troll.

So far, practically every aspect of your argument against flight planning
relies on equipment that is simply not available to most pilots, 100 hour or
not. You're flying with an IFR certified GPS receiver in the oxygen levels,
and that seems to be the core justification behind your failure to do
detailed flight planning.

Yet, your original post clearly implies that the difference between a person
who spends time flight planning and one who does not is simply pilot time.

Well, you sure stirred things up good. You deserve the benefit of the
doubt, and I'll assume it wasn't intentional. But you could not possibly
have lead off with a more misleading question if you'd done it on purpose.

Pete

In article ,
says...


[much snippage]

Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
makes me wonder who's flying the plane.

[much snippage]


I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".



I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
at the wrong airport . . .

If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.

How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
"playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
every pilot today.

Greg

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:00:38 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As I see it, the main idea of flight planning is to reduce the workload in
the cockpit. So, for any long XC or a trip to a new location, I plan the
heck out of it.

And of course that's a way to increase the pleasure you take in the
trip. I pay $75 an hour for the Cub. The flight planning (and
anticipation) are like having an extra hour free.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Michael 182 wrote:


Yeah - I always call as well. The briefings have changed my route, advised
me on TFRs or given me cause not to go at all (usually ice) many times. I
hate to think we may lose this service to computers someday. I really
appreciate good briefers.


For sure. When I was a student working on my PLL, and I'd call fora
briefing, the guys I talked with around here were extremely helpful,
patient, and informative. That would be gone with computerization.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Maybe ATC in the SE Atlantic seaboard have somehow 'broken the code' on
handling direct. I swear that your experience with direct to N Myrtle
is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Between the Wash ADIZ
and Jacksonville I've been filing airways and getting cleared direct
without requesting it. And I'm filing the airways to avoid SUAs that
clog the airspace. The interesting part is that for someone like me
flying at 9 or below, flights typically involve center and multiple
approaches with constant switching. And yet I'm getting cleared direct
3 or 4 handoffs out from my destination. Who knows, it may be
particular to the routes.

I don't know who Doug Brown is but I'm going to continue to be pretty
aggressive in filing and/or requesting direct where I consider it a
reasonable request. And I expect to get it more often than not outside
of those areas where it just isn't doable (ADIZ, Phille/NY corridor, FL
ooastal routes). It's working better than one might expect in my
experience. I'll have to get out more....

Doug Vetter wrote:
Maule Driver wrote:

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!


It probably has more to do with traffic count per square mile (and
therefore workload), which is almost always lower in places other than
the northeast. Getting direct may also have something to do with getting
lucky, no matter where you fly.

Don Brown indicates that one of the chief reasons they hate pilots who
file direct (even out in the boonies where radio calls are made every
100 miles) is that if a direct courseline quickly crosses or nears
several sector boundaries (which can happen in both the horizontal or
vertical planes), they have to do tons of point outs and (lacking
successful communication with the neighboring controllers) radar
vectors, reroutes, and other hand-holding that would not have been
necessary had the pilot filed airways and avoided those trouble-spots in
the first place.

That said, on my way down the coast from New Jersey to Florida a couple
weeks ago, I was about 10 miles south of my second departure point
(Newport News, VA) when I was cleared to my destination (N. Myrtle
Beach, Grand Strand) 225NM out -- a personal direct-to distance record
under IFR. Of course, V1 is almost a straight line between the two
airports and more or less equivalent to a direct-to route (thus I was
getting lucky) but in general I agree with you that you are certainly
more likely to get direct in places OTHER than the northeast.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

AMEN.

I like to think "Whatever floats your boat" when I hear folks talk
about turning off the GPS so as to avoid using it as a crutch.

I'm 100% on my GPS and only track VORs when IMC. I do keep track of
where I am on the map (I tend to use WACs for my 'cleared direct' sojourns)

Purists? After getting my SEL and slogging thru all that VOR work, I
flew sailplanes CC for 15+ years. The first 3-5 years were pure
pilotage. Dead recon doesn't work when you are circling and chasing
lift but you do learn to back up your pilotage with it even in those
conditions. I've been sooo lost, sooo many times, and sooo paid the
price that I became pretty proficient at seat-o-pants chart based, low
level, engine-less pilotage. My character was strengthened as earned
confidence grew.....

Then came GPS. Due to a quirk in sailplane racing rules, VORs and such
were illegal but GPS was legal as soon as it came over the horizon.
Early first generation GPS technology was immediately incorporated into
panel mounted glide computers and those carbon fiber, laminar flow
beauties once again got out ahead of the rest of GA.

What was notable was how few pilots fully utilized the new tech. Most
competitors had it onboard (Honey, did Foxtrot Uniform leave the chart
in the car?) but just never learned to use it fully. Purists I guess
but it seemeed slow to me.

This "turn off the GPS" stuff seems slow to me now too as I sit in my
retrograde Maule wishing I had an autopilot.

Greg Farris wrote:

I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
at the wrong airport . . .

If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.

How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
"playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
every pilot today.

Greg