what flight planning software do you use?

Thanks for all your replies! I myself use charts, and an excel
spreadsheet for the navigation log. I've checked out a few flight
planning software, but they all seemed pricey. Aeroplanner seems to be a
good alternative, so does Copilot. Of course, it's great to blow the
dust off the E-6B once in a while!

One of my friends just got into flying. I took him to the neighborhood
pilot shop (@ PAO), and oriented him with the things he might need,
including the E-6B. It sure was an interesting experience, and one that
brought back memories of my own training. 4 years is sure a long time!

-Sridhar

Sridhar Rajagopal wrote:

Hi,

I was wondering about the following:

1) how many people actually use any kind of flight planning software
(VFR and IFR)?
2) If you do use it, which one do you use?
3) how would you rate it?

Thanks!
Sridhar

Using DUATS or other planners doesn't necessarily mean letting the software
select your waypoints. You can choose those yourself, and just let the
planner perform the tedious calculation of each leg's distance, course,
ground speed, wind correction angle, elapsed time, and fuel consumption.

But I don't find it tedious to plot each leg's course and distance.
It is part of being a pilot; how can it be tedious?

It's analogous, I think, to an amateur photographer's saying that
planning his composition and deciding what shutter speed and f-stop to
use, are tedious.

Obvously, I can't calculate GS, WCA and ET because I won't know the
wind until the day of the trip--and even then, wind forecasts are
notoriously inaccurate. My airplane's fuel consumption is something I
already know.

vince norris

He asked what flight planning software we use. He asked how many people DO
use software.

Why would I answer, given that I don't use any software?

Didn't my post answer that question, Pete?

vince norris

Glad to see that at least a couple of others like to do it the
hands-on way. ((:-))

Of course, it's great to blow the dust off the E-6B once in a while!

One of my friends just got into flying. I took him to the neighborhood
pilot shop (@ PAO), and oriented him with the things he might need,
including the E-6B.

I wonder what people mean, today, when they say "E-6B." Are they
talking about the old faithful hand-powered "whizz-wheel," or one of
those outrageously priced battery-powered jobs?

With a little experience, calculating-- or really, guesstimating--
wind correction angle (unless one is planning to cross the Atlantic
Ocean) requires nothing more than a recollection of high-school trig.

Recall, for example, the characteristics of a 60-30 right triangle.
That will give you the WCA for the stiffest crosswind you are ever
likely to encounter. Interpolation will give you the WCA for lighter
winds, with sufficient accuracy for flying two- or three-hour legs in
a typical GA airplane, using pilotage to fine tune the heading.

vince norris

Since you mention the TFRs, that is one of my major gripes about FliteStar.
It does not plot the TFRs. This is ridiculous, considering what Jeppesen
thinks this program is worth. Almost every flight planning program plots the
TFRs. Even some of the free ones do this. Why the heck can't FliteStar do
it?

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Didn't my post answer that question, Pete?

No. I saw no statement in your post addressing the question of why a person
who did not use flight planning software would respond to a query regarding
what flight planning software you use.

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
I don't doubt you are fast, but I would suggest that a computer doing a
1,000 nm cross country could do it faster than you since it involves many
different weather patterns, different mag. var., and different altitudes.

To each his own. However, IMHO people who use computers to do any variety
of tasks forget that even though the computer reports the results to twenty
decimal places, that doesn't mean you actually have information that
accurate.

Weather, in particular, is the biggest variable in any cross-country, and it
is the least reliable data that goes into what a flight planning package
uses. Your software is using the winds aloft forecast, but frankly, the
best use I've found for the winds aloft forecast is to tell me what the
winds WON'T be doing. Granted, they are sometimes close (but often not),
but they have practically never been on the mark.

I also find that the computer plotting airmets and their relatives is much
faster. By the time you drag out a chart, A/FD to figure out where those
strange ID's are, the computer has already drawn it up. Then you have to
figure the time to plot TFR's, and you better not mess up or else, a
computer is very useful.

TFR's are a good point. However, on a XC most of the time you will be above
the ceiling of the TFR anyway. It's good to have a general idea of where
they are, and you can look more closely if they appear to be near your
route. But flight planning software is by no means necessary for the
purpose of dealing with them.

As for the other elements of the route, one of the problems with flight
planning software is that by the time you drag out a chart, A/FD to figure
out where those strange ID's are (what strange ID's? last I checked,
airmets were not for particular airports and other reporting stations), the
computer has already drawn it up. A pilot not plotting his route by hand ve
ry often does not notice the small details along that route that actually
affect their flight. Using software doesn't preclude doing that, of course,
but nevertheless that is usually the result.

I agree with you in that FlightStar is very good. I disagree with the 2
pilots who claim they don't need, nor understand anybody using it. I
believe to not use it is irresponsible and that's why we have pilot's
breaking TFR's daily

Perhaps I am one of "the 2 pilots" (I saw more, so it's hard to say who
you're talking about). I certainly never said I don't understand anybody
using flight planning software. However, I don't use it, and despite having
four perma-TFR's in my immediate neighborhood, as well as flying past
numerous fire-fighting TFR's on a variety of cross-countries (including
three that spanned the width of the entire contiguous US), I have managed to
not bust a TFR so far, nor had any other problems that flight planning
software might have helped me avoid.

I certainly don't think not using flight planning software is irresponsible,
no more than I think that not using a GPS is irresponsible. Those tools are
well and good for those who wish to use them, but it is entirely possible to
have a perfectly well-planned and safe flight without them.

Pilots should and MUST take advantage of ALL information relating to their
flights now a days, or one day we might lose that right. It's the few who
insist on not doing things by the book that cause all of us trouble.

"ALL"? Come on. No pilot ever takes advantage of literally all information
relating to their flight. You have to draw the line somewhere. You are
being silly to insist that your line is any more rational than someone
else's. The best you can say is that it's more rational FOR YOU.

In other words, I feel that pilots who look with disdain upon those of us
who use flight software don't understand this new world we've been thrust
into.

It's okay for you to look with disdain at me, but perish the thought someone
should look at disdain at you? For the record, I do not look at disdain
upon you, but I also feel it's hypocritical for you to look with disdain at
me.

Pete

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Using DUATS or other planners doesn't necessarily mean letting the
software
select your waypoints. You can choose those yourself, and just let the
planner perform the tedious calculation of each leg's distance, course,
ground speed, wind correction angle, elapsed time, and fuel consumption.

But I don't find it tedious to plot each leg's course and distance.
It is part of being a pilot; how can it be tedious?

Repetitive arithmetic calculations are tedious (and error-prone) regardless
of the context. Besides, another part of being a pilot is making use of the
best available tools. And where do you draw the line? If you balk at using
a flight planner to calculate each leg's course, distance, ground speed,
wind correction, elapsed time, and fuel used, then why not reject the E6B as
well, and insist on doing all the calculations with just pencil and paper?

My airplane's fuel consumption is something I already know.

Yes, but the fuel used for each leg (as well as the cumulative usage and
remaining fuel at each waypoint) has to be calculated afresh.

Obvously, I can't calculate GS, WCA and ET because I won't know the
wind until the day of the trip--and even then, wind forecasts are
notoriously inaccurate.

Using a flight planner, I can quickly generate a no-wind plan for each of
several prospective routes, comparing the distances and times involved. I
can contrast a direct route with a more scenic route, or look at various IFR
routes that ATC might assign me. Shortly before the flight, I can get
wind-adjusted plans for several scenarios, including different altitudes as
well as different routes. A strong wind has a significant impact on flight
times; even inaccurate forecasts are usually a better bet than a no-wind
plan on a windy day.

I see the value in occasionally calculating diversion legs by hand while
flying, just to stay in practice for real-time planning. But I don't need
to perform that exercise for each leg of each contemplated route of each
flight, any more than I need to re-read all the FARs before each flight.

--Gary

vince norris

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:wCfdb.603792$uu5.98880@sccrnsc04...
[...] And where do you draw the line? If you balk at using
a flight planner to calculate each leg's course, distance, ground speed,
wind correction, elapsed time, and fuel used, then why not reject the E6B
as
well, and insist on doing all the calculations with just pencil and paper?

I can't speak for Vince, but in my own case, my reasoning involves the fact
that the E6B produces results that are accurate within the same order of
magnitude as what the airplane is capable of flying. There's no need to use
anything any more accurate, because the real world gets in the way of those
calculations being relevant.

I don't so much "balk at using a flight planner" as I do enjoy the manual
process of planning a flight, and see no significant advantage to using
flight planning software.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I am neck-deep in computers
the rest of my life. I also prefer to fly strictly VFR by pilotage. I have
an instrument rating, and use it when necessary. I even enjoy those
moments. But what I like best is flying without all that transistorized
equipment.

Yes, but the fuel used for each leg (as well as the cumulative usage and
remaining fuel at each waypoint) has to be calculated afresh.

While many aircraft manuals provide detailed fuel consumption figures for
climb, cruise, and descent, I have found that for my own airplane, using a
single "gallons per hour" consumption rate and a single "average TAS" is
just as accurate. I regularly complete flights to within five minutes of my
calculated time, with similar precision on fuel consumption. Given that I'm
flying with an hour of fuel reserves, there's just no need to be any more
accurate. It's a waste of precious time that could be used flying.

This approach has worked well for flights in other aircraft as well (Cessna
172s and 182s mostly), though of course it depends somewhat on being more
familiar with the airplane, a luxury I have as an airplane owner.

Using a flight planner, I can quickly generate a no-wind plan for each of
several prospective routes, comparing the distances and times involved.

I can quickly do that without a flight planner.

I can contrast a direct route with a more scenic route, or look at various
IFR
routes that ATC might assign me.

I can quickly do that without a flight planner.

Shortly before the flight, I can get
wind-adjusted plans for several scenarios, including different altitudes
as
well as different routes. A strong wind has a significant impact on
flight
times; even inaccurate forecasts are usually a better bet than a no-wind
plan on a windy day.

I disagree. IMHO, the most practical approach is to use the winds aloft
solely as a "suggestion" as to general conditions, and whether flying higher
or lower will result in better groundspeeds. I start with a no-wind plan,
provide plenty of fuel reserves (as mentioned, minimum of one hour, but
payload allowing, it can be much more), and constantly update my flight plan
in-flight. Landing early for fuel has only been required once, but is
always an option I expect to take.

Using flight planning software does nothing to change that.

I have had plenty of flights where the winds aloft said I was going to have
a tailwind, but when I actually found myself in cruise flight, had a
headwind. I haven't been keeping count, but off the top of my head, I'd say
it's conservatively at least a quarter of my XC flights.

[...] But I don't need
to perform that exercise for each leg of each contemplated route of each
flight, any more than I need to re-read all the FARs before each flight.

If you don't enjoy doing so, then by all means, use flight planning
software. But you should not consider your flight plan any more accurate
than one done by hand.

Pete

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
He also asked how many people use flight planning software. Negative
responses provide information to that part of the request.

No they don't.

That's like saying "how many apples are in that bowl", and thinking that
being told how many apples aren't in that bowl somehow answers the question.

Unless you have a 100% response rate from all pilots AND know exactly how
many pilots you're talking about, negative answers do nothing to answer the
question.

Pete