Navigation flight planning during training

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?

During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
ground speed.

All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.

I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?


The number one reason - the students will have no idea how to do it and
what is involved in planninng a flight. Show them all of it. Besides,
what do you think the examiner is going to say if they can;t figure out
how to do any of that stuff and the student says, "Oh I just use a
computer for that. My instructor says paper and pencils and those
things are useless these days." ?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:


So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

Let me add one other thing to my post. I do think you ought to spend some
time and show the students how to use the newer technology. Maybe have them
do one manually and then have them do one via computer. Then spend some time
explaining the differences in the outcomes.

On 03/13/07 03:32, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?


Well, I'm neither but I am traditional. Certainly the newer and more convenient
ways of flight planning need to be taught. At the same time, I think you're
doing your student a disservice if he doesn't learn how to do it the old
fashioned way. You don't always have access to a computer.

The only thing I would change in this paragraph is calling it "the old
fashioned way". I think the student should learn and understand the basics
of the flight plan before automation can safely be applied.

Learning the basics really drive home the issues of wind correction angles,
fuel consumption, etc., all very important concepts even when using automated
flight planning software and GPSs.


It would be analogous to expecting to fly by GPS only to have it take a crap on
you. Certainly being able to find your way via VORs and NDBs would be an
advantage.

When I was learning, even though we had a perfectly reliable VOR system, we
still were expected to be able to find our way by pilotage. I can, too...
though it's hardly the way I'd choose to go. But the skill set wasn't a total
waste of time.

What you should choose depends on the flight. Some flights I navigate by pilotage
simply because it is more fun. Especially night flights.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
diversion.

My favorite DE (I send him my students whenever I can, and have taken
several checkrides with him myself) probably fails more private
applicants on the diversion than on anything else (and he has a pretty
low failure rate - those of us who know him know better than to send
someone who is weak in some area to him in the hope that this area
might be missed - he has an uncommon knack for finding the weak area
in the strongest candidate) and there is a method to his madness.

If a student's turns around a point are egg-shaped, so what? When
will he do those again, and will it really matter if they don't look
good? If his steep turn loses a little more than the permitted 100
ft, or the angle of bank isn't held to 45 +/- 5, so what? When will
he do one again? Will it matter that he loses 200 ft?

A student who can't do a decent diversion will fail, and needs to
fail. Diversions are a fact of life. Headwinds sap your reserves and
cause you to land short. Weather unexpectedly changes and forces you
to alter course. Airports close unexpectedly. Flight restrictions
pop up. Mechanical problems that don't immediately force you to land
but make remaining in the air for hours inadvisable will happen.
Diversions are not a matter of if - just when and how.

So what is a diversion? It's an impromptu flight plan, made on short
(or no) notice, without access to all the lovely computers, maybe
without access to anything electronic at all.

Back in the dark ages, when I learned to fly, our skill at quick and
accurate flight planning was tested. I was told by my instructor that
when I showed up for the checkride, I would be given a destination and
told to plan the flight while the examiner waited - in 30 minutes.
That would include checkpoints, course, headings, runway requirements,
fuel - everything. I thought this impossible, but I was determined
and I practiced and I discovered that it really wasn't impossible -
once you really understood what you were doing and why. This directly
translated to being able to efficiently plan a diversion.

Is there any real value to planning a flight manually on the ground?
Not really. I can't think of the last time I did it. But all the
elements involved still have value. In your typical 100 kt spam can,
flying in just the lower 48, you can easily find yourself flying a
heading that's 45 degrees wrong (and never getting to your diversion
point) if you ignore things like magnetic variation and winds aloft,
and they happen to add instead of cancel. Go somewhere like West
Texas, and fuel becomes important (airports are no longer a few
minutes apart). And what if the weather is closing in below you, and
you have to climb to get over some clouds or terrain? All of a sudden
climb fuel becomes important.

I really can't see much that you can leave out of the typical manually
planned VFR flight without jeopardizing the ability of the student to
handle the diversion. It's all very well to say that we use
approximations in the diversion - we do. But you need to understand
what it is you are approximating.

Michael

This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
scared me.

What does a typical checkride look like?

BTW, I hope to learn HOW to do manual flight planning and not count on
electronic planners, but in practice I expect to use many means to plan XCs
in addition to knowing HOW.

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
diversion.

My favorite DE (I send him my students whenever I can, and have taken
several checkrides with him myself) probably fails more private
applicants on the diversion than on anything else (and he has a pretty
low failure rate - those of us who know him know better than to send
someone who is weak in some area to him in the hope that this area
might be missed - he has an uncommon knack for finding the weak area
in the strongest candidate) and there is a method to his madness.

If a student's turns around a point are egg-shaped, so what? When
will he do those again, and will it really matter if they don't look
good? If his steep turn loses a little more than the permitted 100
ft, or the angle of bank isn't held to 45 +/- 5, so what? When will
he do one again? Will it matter that he loses 200 ft?

A student who can't do a decent diversion will fail, and needs to
fail. Diversions are a fact of life. Headwinds sap your reserves and
cause you to land short. Weather unexpectedly changes and forces you
to alter course. Airports close unexpectedly. Flight restrictions
pop up. Mechanical problems that don't immediately force you to land
but make remaining in the air for hours inadvisable will happen.
Diversions are not a matter of if - just when and how.

So what is a diversion? It's an impromptu flight plan, made on short
(or no) notice, without access to all the lovely computers, maybe
without access to anything electronic at all.

Back in the dark ages, when I learned to fly, our skill at quick and
accurate flight planning was tested. I was told by my instructor that
when I showed up for the checkride, I would be given a destination and
told to plan the flight while the examiner waited - in 30 minutes.
That would include checkpoints, course, headings, runway requirements,
fuel - everything. I thought this impossible, but I was determined
and I practiced and I discovered that it really wasn't impossible -
once you really understood what you were doing and why. This directly
translated to being able to efficiently plan a diversion.

Is there any real value to planning a flight manually on the ground?
Not really. I can't think of the last time I did it. But all the
elements involved still have value. In your typical 100 kt spam can,
flying in just the lower 48, you can easily find yourself flying a
heading that's 45 degrees wrong (and never getting to your diversion
point) if you ignore things like magnetic variation and winds aloft,
and they happen to add instead of cancel. Go somewhere like West
Texas, and fuel becomes important (airports are no longer a few
minutes apart). And what if the weather is closing in below you, and
you have to climb to get over some clouds or terrain? All of a sudden
climb fuel becomes important.

I really can't see much that you can leave out of the typical manually
planned VFR flight without jeopardizing the ability of the student to
handle the diversion. It's all very well to say that we use
approximations in the diversion - we do. But you need to understand
what it is you are approximating.

Michael

GPS - "nearest, enter, enter" is of course a good thing to know.

Instructor turns off GPS -- "your GPS failed!"

Student reaches into pocket and pulls out portable battery operated GPS....

(variation on the old flashlight joke).

--

but I think the old fashioned way is a good thing. I learned to fly 20
years ago, I still fly with a thumb on my position on a sectional on my lap
at all times, GPS or not.




Lee

On 03/13/07 10:16, Andy Lutz wrote:
This sounds a bit overwhelming. I am only 9 hours into my training but is
this what I might expect to see in a VFR PPL checkride? I know I have lots
to learn and get comfortable with, including navigation and flight planning,
what does a DE want to see in this arena? I'll look at the PTS, but you
scared me.

What does a typical checkride look like?

All my D.E. wanted to see was that I could tell where I was at (roughly)
so that I new which way to turn and roughly how far I was from the
alternate field. In fact, figuring at 2 NM/minute was considered an
acceptable 'guestimate' for the new ETE.

By the way, when you need to divert, get headed in the correct direction
first and note the time you began your leg. Then you can take whatever
time you need to determine the distance (from your leg's starting point)
and your ETE. Then use the time you've been on the leg to get your ETA.

If this sounds confusing, just sit down and try it - you'll see how it
all fits together quite logically; which is why you want to learn this
in the first place ;-)


BTW, I hope to learn HOW to do manual flight planning and not count on
electronic planners, but in practice I expect to use many means to plan XCs
in addition to knowing HOW.

That's great. That's how it should be.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Thanks for all the discussion on this topic. Regardless of your
personal opinion on the subject, this is a topic of high relevance due
to the rapid changes in technology taking place in the way we fly.

One additional comment I would like to add is that, we should not
equate computer usage with lack of understanding of the basics.
Automation has the potential to allow us to focus on the important
tasks and let the computer take care of the mundane tasks. I once had
a student many years ago who computed all headings with great
precision, by hand using an E6B, only to find that he had reversed all
headings by 180 degress. He was all caught up in the details of the
computation that he forgot to see the big picture. With automation
that is less likely to happen. However, if it is not taught properly,
it can also be harmful.

There was an article in a recent aviation magazine (I can't remember
the magazine title) where they compared students who learned to fly in
glass cockpitsat Embry Riddle vs the traditional instruments, and the
conclusion was that students who learned in the glass environment were
just as good as or even better than the previous generation.

So obviously a discussion on modernizing training methods is something
that need to be taken seriously.








On Mar 13, 10:40 am, Tim wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
This question is directed at student pilots and flight instructors.

How many of you learn/teach cross country navigation using the
traditional methods using paper charts, protractors, E6B and
navigation logs?

During my training more than 10 years ago, xc planning was a fairly
elaborate process that involved filling lots of numbers in small
boxes. The flight was broken down into approximately 25 mile legs, and
each row had distance, true course, winds, temperature, variation,
wind correction angle, magnetic heading, time, fuel. Then we add up
the columns to get total time and fuel. We also compute the time
required to climb and descent. If we want to be more precise, we also
compute the fuel needed for taxi and run-up. Once airborne, we
religiously write down more numbers at each checkpoint and recompute
ground speed.

All fine, but I don't do any of these on a typical flight. I use an
online source such as skyvector.com to view the charts. Then I use an
online software to compute heading and time. That plus a paper chart
is pretty much all I need for a VFR flight.

I've been toying with the idea of taking a different approach to
teaching flight planning by skipping a lot of these things. I don't
see the purpose of doing things by hand when it is done much easier on
a computer. It feels like using a typewriter instead of a computer. In
addition, the less stuff you have in the cockpit, the simpler the
organization becomes. All these papers and pens flying around the
cockpit becomes an organizational nightmare.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

The number one reason - the students will have no idea how to do it and
what is involved in planninng a flight. Show them all of it. Besides,
what do you think the examiner is going to say if they can;t figure out
how to do any of that stuff and the student says, "Oh I just use a
computer for that. My instructor says paper and pencils and those
things are useless these days." ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Recently, Michael posted:

On Mar 13, 12:28 am, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

I think there is one important aspect you are overlooking. The
diversion.

(rest of an excellent post snipped for brevity)

I couldn't agree more with the points you've raised. We have become so
familiar with the shortcuts that computerization offers that we may lose
sight of the underlying principles. There is also merit in having some
notion of when the "computer solution" may not be the most prudent way to
proceed.

Even though I have written my own xc spreadsheets to reduce manual
paperwork and have had a GPS for years, I don't think that manual planning
is a waste of time. I don't leave on any long xc without my course and
options clearly marked on a sectional, because the more I do up front, the
more I can relax and enjoy the flight.

Regards,

Neil

On Mar 13, 6:28 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

So what are your thoughts on this? Is the ability to compute a flight
by hand really important? Are there important aspects I am
overlooking?

Manual computation of flight planning is a vital fundamental IMHO.
Notes scribbled on a piece of paper and a line on a map can't run out
of batteries, crash, or become unserviceable mid flight. They lend
themselves to be modified in flight with only minor fuss.

The new flashy PC/net/GPS based toys are great, and for the most part
do a great job, but at the end of the day its my life I am gambling
with and I always use my electronic nav aids as an aid, not a
crutch. Thats something which we are seeing more and more often when
low time pilots (like me) hit the Direct-To on their GPS, cut in the
autopilot and cause no end of mayhem in the process.