A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Navigation flight planning during training



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 14th 07, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Michael[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Navigation flight planning during training

On Mar 13, 8:40 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
Thanks for pointing out diversion. But I would consider that to be an
argument against doing extensive paper calculations. Diversion is not
done with an E6B, plotter and a flight log. It is done by taking a wag
at the course and distance, making a reasonable assumption about wind
and variation and coming up with rough heading and time.


First off, it depends on the diversion. Not every diversion is
complete in a matter of minutes, although that is the only kind that
gets tested on the checkride. In the real world of flying VFR XC, you
may well find yourself diverting to an airport 100+ miles away. Maybe
it's to go around weather you didn't expect, maybe it's because
headwinds are greater than anticipated and suitable airports are not
so close together as one might like, maybe it's because a TFR popped
up. In those cases, you should do at least a little calculating.

But even a short range diversion is done by approximating the steps
that are fully computed in paper flight planning. Now the problem is
that most people have a difficult time approximating something they
never really learned to do exactly. See Roy's response on this - and
I've had the same experience he has. People get out of the habit of
doing the full procedure, and then when they need to do an
abbreviated, approximate procedure they can't do that either. The
ability to take a wag at the course and distance quickly and
accurately really only comes from having computed it multiple times
and observed patterns.

If it were up to me, we would go back to the 30 minute XC plan. That
would force the student to keep drilling for speed, and through sheer
repetition he would start gettting a feel for what the results ought
to be.

So the original question
still remains. Why not do all ground planning by computer, and if
anything unusual happens during flight, fly it like a diversion?


Because if you can't do the steps on paper, on the ground, what makes
you think you can do them even approximately in flight?

It is important to
understand why we teach certain things. Most aeronautical information
is simply passed down from one CFI to the next, and many things are
done by habit instead of reason.


I agree. And there are things that I think could be safely dropped
from the paper planning process. Compass deviation? Trying to
correct out those sub-5-degree errors by looking at a whiskey compass
bouncing around in the turbulence? Get real. It may have made sense
in the days of dead reckoning hundreds of miles at a time, but those
days are gone. These days, we dead reckon at most 50 miles.

And the moronic triple-interpolation for takeoff and landing distance
in those Cessna books? Waste of time. Round up the temperature and
altitude, round down the pressure, and call it good. Gives you a
little cushion (little enough, the way most rentals are maintained).

But the fundamentals - choosing checkpoints, correcting heading for
wind and magnetic variation, estimating climb fuel and cruise fuel -
you have to know these things.

I have yet to see a convincing
argument for the pen & paper method, except for claims that it is
'basic information all pilots should know'.


Well, it is. Because without it, the approximate methods used in a
diversion will be meaningless (since the student won't understand what
he is approximating) and thus quickly forgotten. Not that I'm sure
this isn't happening already.

Michael

  #42  
Old March 14th 07, 04:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Navigation flight planning during training

On 03/13/07 16:57, Andy Lutz wrote:
Thanks for the encouragement. I did sound a bit scared as I read my first
post. I have heard about most of the things you mentioned in my reading. I
got the test booklet from ASA last year and have read it through a few
times. Without the instructor walking with me through it too, it was
sounding rather complicated to do spur of the moment. But now that I have a
CFI to help explain things one concept at a time, and train to competence as
I need it, I should do much better.

I guess I'm feeling that more may be expected of me than I think I can do.
My instructor, a MCFI, by the way, I trust implicitly. He told me after my
last lesson that most people take their check ride at 65-70 hours and he
thought I may be ready at 50 or less. That is scary too. But as I said, I
trust him and he won't push me beyond what I'm ready for. I want to push out
of my mind that 50 hour comment and not expect anything like it, but it
threatens to hang aroung and plump my ego, and there is no room for an ego
in those small cockpits.


Perhaps you should mention to him how is comment affected you. If you would
have done better without it, he should know. Consider it "constructive criticism" ;-)

I haven't soloed yet and I think I still have a way
to go. I expect I'l be sharing about that here when the time comes.

OK, for now, just breathe! Take lessons one at a time. I'll worry about not
learning what I've been taught, after I've been taught it.


Best of luck, and please keep posting.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
  #43  
Old March 14th 07, 05:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Gary[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Navigation flight planning during training


Sextant? You had a sextant? When I was a kid, we thought we were lucky if
we had an astrolabe.


You had stars?


  #44  
Old March 14th 07, 11:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Alan Gerber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Navigation flight planning during training

In rec.aviation.student Michael wrote:
The
ability to take a wag at the course and distance quickly and
accurately really only comes from having computed it multiple times
and observed patterns.


If it were up to me, we would go back to the 30 minute XC plan. That
would force the student to keep drilling for speed, and through sheer
repetition he would start gettting a feel for what the results ought
to be.


When I was doing my cross-country work, I planned WAY more cross-country
trips than I actually went on. Most of the trips got cancelled due to
weather. This worked in my favor, in the long run, because I got exactly
that repeated drilling in the process.

When checkride time came, I had no problem planning the trip (granted, the
DE gave me the destination a few days in advance, but I actually planned
it that morning, with current weather). And the cross-country part of the
written exam was a snap, too.

I agree. And there are things that I think could be safely dropped
from the paper planning process. Compass deviation? Trying to
correct out those sub-5-degree errors by looking at a whiskey compass
bouncing around in the turbulence? Get real. It may have made sense
in the days of dead reckoning hundreds of miles at a time, but those
days are gone. These days, we dead reckon at most 50 miles.


The deviation cards in the planes I trained in had very small corrections
-- smaller than my ability to hold a heading at the time. When I
explained that to my CFI, he didn't hassle me about not having deviation
figures in my flight plan. Not to mention, of course, that the
actual-vs-forecast winds would probably impact my course by more than the
deviation anyhow, in a random direction, which basically makes the
deviation figures noise unless they're significant.

And the moronic triple-interpolation for takeoff and landing distance
in those Cessna books? Waste of time. Round up the temperature and
altitude, round down the pressure, and call it good. Gives you a
little cushion (little enough, the way most rentals are maintained).


Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
do I need", it's "is the runway long enough". In a rental, if you're so
close you need to do exact interpolation, then the runway is already not
long enough.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com
  #45  
Old March 14th 07, 11:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Alan Gerber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Navigation flight planning during training

In rec.aviation.student C J Campbell wrote:
One bad tendency I have noticed with a calculator is that calculators
usually display a level of precision, such as seconds or tenths of a
mile, that is pure fantasy. I teach students to round everything at
least to the nearest minute and mile. You could probably round
everything to five minutes and ten miles and not lose anything
significant.


One of the hazards of calculators, and of electronic computation in
general. Nobody understands the concept of "significant digits" any more.
Just last week, I saw somebody build a spreadsheet with single-digit
input, but triple-digit comparisons in the output. I had to explain that
there was no way that "4.89" and "5.12" were actually different results,
and that there was no reason to prefer one over the other based on those
calculations.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com
  #46  
Old March 15th 07, 01:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Navigation flight planning during training

On Mar 14, 7:32 am, C J Campbell
wrote:

However, a student should understand manual flight planning well enough
to be able to calculate drift, groundspeed, etc. The fact is, someone
proficient with an E6B will always be faster than someone with a
calculator. The E6B does an excellent job at depicting the effect of
winds visually as well.


When I learned manual flight planning, the aim was to teach me how
to perform the measurements and calculations by hand. By doing this,
I understood the concepts involved in plotting a course, figuring wind
drift, magnetic variation, speed and time. Somehow I think that
plugging a few data points into a program and looking at the results
would not accomplish that goal. It's analagous to handing a third
grader a calculator, and telling them not to worry about learning math
by hand. By plugging the proper numbers into the calculator, they'll
get the right answer, but will miss out on much of the theory behind
that answer.

By the way, when I took my PPL check ride back in the dark ages, I
was expected to do more than just give the examiner a WAG on the
diversion. I had to turn towards the alternate using a WAG, then
come up with the actual course, distance and time to the new
airport. In a real life weather diversion, given the possibility of
reduced visibility or low ceilings, the accuracy of that calculation
could mean the difference between arriving, or flying past the
alternate.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

  #47  
Old March 15th 07, 01:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Stan Prevost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Navigation flight planning during training


"Alan Gerber" wrote in message
...

Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
do I need", it's "is the runway long enough".


There's a difference?



  #48  
Old March 15th 07, 02:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Alan Gerber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default Navigation flight planning during training

In rec.aviation.student Stan Prevost wrote:

"Alan Gerber" wrote in message
...

Right. People forget why they're doing this. It's not "how much runway
do I need", it's "is the runway long enough".


There's a difference?


Sort of. It's not like you're going to go out and buy a runway that's
1,542 feet long. You're trying to figure out if you can safely use,
say, a 2,000 foot runway.

So if you're looking at an answer that's in the 1,500-foot range, you
don't need to get it exactly. And if the answer is in the 2,500-foot
range, you need to do something drastic.

So you don't need to interpolate from the tables. Round everything up,
and if it still fits, great. If it doesn't fit, but it's close, MAYBE you
should go back and do a more precise calculation. Or maybe you should
think about reducing fuel, or cargo, or waiting for a colder day.

If the rounded-up answer is 1,700 feet, and the "right" answer is 1,461
feet, it's not like you're going to pay extra for the "extra" 239 feet.
You might relax a little more, but either way you'll get off the runway
OK.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com
  #49  
Old March 15th 07, 08:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Andrey Serbinenko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Navigation flight planning during training

Completely agree with this. One other point I might add is that by
blindly using a calculator or some program that does all the computations
for you, it is very easy to become a victim of a "garbage in - garbage out"
scenario. I've seen this happen more than once: people would plug in some
numbers, get some numbers back, and just take those numbers as the answer,
even though they're completely wrong because of an error made in the input.
When you do things by hand, you get a much better feel for how sane your
results are, because you see all the intermediate steps, and there's many
more places that would raise a red flag for you if you made a mistake.
Besides, I could never fully trust the completeness and correctness of the
airnav data that online planners use: after all, if one blunders into a
restricted airspace, or scratches a mountainside because of an error in
such a planner's database, that would be pretty sad, and totally that
person's responsibility.

Andrey


In rec.aviation.piloting Alan Gerber wrote:
One of the hazards of calculators, and of electronic computation in
general. Nobody understands the concept of "significant digits" any more.
Just last week, I saw somebody build a spreadsheet with single-digit
input, but triple-digit comparisons in the output. I had to explain that
there was no way that "4.89" and "5.12" were actually different results,
and that there was no reason to prefer one over the other based on those
calculations.

... Alan

  #50  
Old March 15th 07, 09:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Navigation flight planning during training

On Mar 15, 3:12 pm, Andrey Serbinenko
wrote:
Completely agree with this. One other point I might add is that by
blindly using a calculator or some program that does all the computations
for you, it is very easy to become a victim of a "garbage in - garbage out"
scenario. I've seen this happen more than once: people would plug in some
numbers, get some numbers back, and just take those numbers as the answer,
even though they're completely wrong because of an error made in the input.
When you do things by hand, you get a much better feel for how sane your
results are, because you see all the intermediate steps, and there's many
more places that would raise a red flag for you if you made a mistake.
Besides, I could never fully trust the completeness and correctness of the
airnav data that online planners use: after all, if one blunders into a
restricted airspace, or scratches a mountainside because of an error in
such a planner's database, that would be pretty sad, and totally that
person's responsibility.

Andrey



As I mentioned in a related post, I once had a student who painstaking
did all the calculations by hand, but everything was reversed by 180-
degrees. It was because he was so caught up with measuring the chart
and operating the E6B that he missed the big picture. One could argue
that had he done it by computer, his brain might have been more
relaxted to catch that sort of mistakes.


Your point about the accuracy of the online data is a valid point.
One cannot be sure if the chart on your screen is the latest version
and if it contains all the updates. However, that would only become a
problem if you don't carry a real chart with you during flight. Even
if the online planner routed you through a restricted airspace, you
should be able to catch it during flight.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flight Planning PYM to DEN William Snow Piloting 22 December 12th 05 05:24 PM
Planning a flight Chris Instrument Flight Rules 23 February 23rd 05 10:15 PM
Pre-flight planning really is worth doing. Roy Smith Instrument Flight Rules 6 August 25th 04 10:17 PM
Flight planning at the lower flight levels Peter R. Piloting 2 March 16th 04 03:39 AM
Flight Planning Software Joe Allbritten Piloting 2 December 21st 03 03:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.