Who does flight plans?

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!

Doug Vetter wrote:

FYI, if you want to plan / file direct VFR, fine. But don't try that
IFR -- particularly in the northeast. It irritates the controllers, and
no surprise. The AIM specifies that you should file airways (sorry I
don't have the exact reference handy...but just read Don Brown's columns
on Avweb for more info). The entire ATC system (airspace boundaries,
etc.) are based on the airway system, and when you file direct, you
increase controller workload. Given the shortage of controllers, that's
just about the last thing you should do.

-Doug

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

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

In article ,
says...


Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the
kind of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning
purposes.

I never file VFR. Often file IFR.



Yes - I think I also answered off-topic a bit. I thought we were talking about
flight plans, when reading more carefully I realize we were talking more about
flight planning. As I said before, I think VFR flight plans are frequently a
bother, and do not enhance safety that much, particularly if you plan to use
flight following.

I do not feel the same about flight planning. I did my PPL some years ago, but
I still make up a log sheet for long flights, and I measure the distaznce
between waypoints. Nothing like 10nm waypoints - frequently 25 or 30nm, but I
do feel better prepared if I've studied the map. With a GPS *AND* DME it's
pretty hard to justify doing all the calcuations and wind corrections, except
that it gives you something to do - If you're in a Skyhawk, screaming along at
110KTAS but with an ultra-modern panel, it's like the extra capabilities of
the latter help to compensate the shortcomings of the former!

My detailed, annotated course lines have been reduced to little more than a
light pencil trace on the sectional, and a sheet with mostly frequencies on
it, but some waypoints, distances and altitude changes as well.

Recently, I had a radio problem, on a day with a pretty strong wind, and
marginal visibility. In dealing with the problem I let myself get off course a
few nm. I ended up west of an airfield I had planned to fly east of, and
getting close to another class "D". OK, this was nowhere close to anything
really untoward happening - but it was useful to have all sorts of pertinent
info right in front of me on my "cheat sheet". I jot down (type out, actually)
anything I think may be useful along the way - mostly contact frequencies, and
some VOR crossing radials. Of course it would only take a minute to look any
of this up - but it was nice to have everything right there on one
kneeboard-sized page.

There's also an "administrative" justification. With pilots being responsible
to have accumulated "all pertinent information" about the flight, you always
wonder just how far an over-zealous inspector might go in insinuating you were
not fully prepared. What if my class D had been a class B, and I actually
violated it. I could easily find myself trying to explain to some unfriendly
folks once on the ground, and in that case it wouldn't hurt to be able to show
I had the weather and all "pertinent" data .

G Faris

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...
Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the kind
of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning
purposes.

I always do a PLOG

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going
more
than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts
your
liberty to fly where you want. [...]

As has been pointed out, if the requirement is only to file, that's hardly
an inconvenience with respect to flying where you want to.

Even if you are required to have an active flight plan, diversions are not
difficult to deal with. You simply find the nearest FSS frequency, and
amend your plan (ETA for sure, route if it's changed significantly enough).

I've never run into an FBO that requires flight plans, but if I did, I would
pay very close attention to their exact requirements, and what -- if any --
implications it has for insurance coverage. In many cases, the renter's not
actually covered by the FBO's insurance anyway, but it's possible that where
a renter is covered, and where a "flight plan required" policy is in force,
the insurance would be valid only if the flight plan requirement is met.

Anyway, I do use VFR flight plans for long cross-country flights, especially
if they are over hostile terrain and/or I don't expect to be in radio
contact during the flight. Of course, I'm not sure that the question of
filing or opening a flight plan is what the original poster had in mind.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
Of course, I'm not sure that the question of filing or opening a flight
plan is what the original poster had in mind.

Pete


No, it wasn't what I had in mind. I file flight plans all the time since I
do a lot of IFR flying. I was asking about the pre-filing flight planning
activities that people engage in. For me that activity is 90% weather.

And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread
that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor. I have flown there
a number of times, usually between Gaithersburg, Reading, East Hampton and
Portland (cities where I have family or business) and when I do I file
airways, as one other poster suggested. Maybe it is because I don't have
enough knowledge of preferred routes in the area, but my experience has been
that I never get what I file anyway, and that I usually get at least one or
two clearances changes in route.

Michael

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I
always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
(two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the
mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow,
which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information earlier.

I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III to
fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own independent
failure.

If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over 1200
hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and find
an airport.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume. In any case, I
don't feel that in-flight is the best time to be "figuring out" where you
are. It's MUCH better to already know where you are, and know what your
available options are.

In the event that things start going wrong in-flight, I would much rather
spend my limited attention flying the airplane and dealing with the
situation, than to waste time doing work that could have been done on the
ground, or as the flight progressed.

It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and
ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at
any time anyway.

I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled
in flight, with very minimal ground planning.

All of what? The statement you quoted pertains only to something that has
to be done in flight. I would argue that not only can it easily be handled
in flight, it can ONLY be handled in flight. But you can't do the
cross-check unless you have something to cross-check against, and that
requires preflight action.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your fuel-flow
meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that function...not all
do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time left on the fuel-flow
meter, you consider that good. If for some reason the ETE shows you past
your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an arrival somewhere else
while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for the
possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a pretty
lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is one of
those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning while
enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where that's
assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect the
entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable emergency
landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact lat/long of where
I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good idea of the
topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what direction turn
will likely be required at any given point along the flight.

Sometimes the route simply cannot be done with reasonably assurance of safe
landing sites, which is what I described as "hostile terrain" in a previous
post. It doesn't mean I won't fly over those areas, necessarily, but it
does mean I take extra precautions and I at least am aware of the section(s)
of the route that will require even greater vigilance with respect to engine
monitoring and careful identification of even the most marginal-but-doable
emergency landing site (you'd be surprised at what can be found even in
hostile terrain, if you're looking for it).

In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone would
fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If you're flying
a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little chance of landing
off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the terrain, that's one
thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to know what the ground
is like along their route.

You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far away
from any services.

There's just too much information available from VFR charts for any pilot
with any sense of self-preservation and who takes the charge of "pilot in
command" seriously to ignore that information.

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight decision
making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of having to
make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having considered likely
disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during the flight.

Don't forget, many aircraft accidents happened only because the pilot was
distracted from the duty of controlling the aircraft. Anything you can do
to minimize the distractions while flying the aircraft, you should. This
definitely includes proper and thorough pre-flight planning.

Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel left,
you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available. Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than that.
The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't be
close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were cross-checking?

But, once again, even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held
backup failed, and the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so
I couldn't get vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in
the US without seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip.

So your plan is to just keep heading in a specific direction until you see
an airport? That's not much of a plan, IMHO.

I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about
maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go
decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am
current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane
the geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by
technology.

IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots of
potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there who
don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared to
many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's clear
to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during my
pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't pass
muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely abdicating
their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety of the flight,
and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of silicon.

Pete

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
[...]
And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread
that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor.

Most of the people haven't even said where they fly. How is that clear to
you?

For what it's worth, I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the bulk of my
cross-country flying is done in the western states. The planning is
different from that used in densely populated areas, but just as important.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. snip I
always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
(two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute.


I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel
flow, which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

I don't understand this comment. Obviously I plan, at least in my head, fuel
flow and distance. But this is not very extensive planning - in fact it is
almost second nature. I'm filing IFR, and I have to give time enroute and
fuel on board as two of the items in the plan.


Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information
earlier.

That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within 10%.
During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of respect
for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done in my
head.


I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III
to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own
independent failure.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume.

Come on, I have dual in-panel navigation and two levels of battery backup
with a Pilot III and a battery operated NavCom. And, as a way last resort, I
have a cell phone. Yes, anything could happen, but I don't see how
pre-flight planning will help me here if everything went south, which, once
again, I just don't believe will happen. There is too much redundancy here.

If I was in VMC, there is really no emergency. Fly until I find an airport
and land. Virtually every midsize town (and most small towns) in the west
has an airport.

If I was in IMC I fail to see how doing extensive pre-flight route planning
would help. I know where I am while I'm flying from the GPS. If and when it
goes out (and the handheld goes out...) I'll know where I am at that point.
Assuming I still have the radios, or the handheld NavCom I'll contact ATC
and get assistance. If I don't have any communications or Nav equipment, I
may be in for a lot of trouble. but remember, I'm IMC at this point. I don't
believe that pre-flight planning of waypoints will be a lot of help at this
point...

But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check
against, and that requires preflight action.

Uh, no. That's what having on-board navigation equipment allows you to do.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your
fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that
function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time
left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason
the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an
arrival somewhere else while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for
the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a
pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is
one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning
while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where
that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Sorry, I disagree. Once again, I spend as much time as is necessary to fully
brief myself and make weather decisions. I make a quick ETE and fuel plan
with a very wide margin for error. I have invested in equipment and backup,
and know how to use them very well. I don't see this as sloppy or dangerous.
In fact, I believe it makes for much safer enroute environment than
extensive plotting on charts. Having said that, I fully respect pilotage,
and do not consider those that use it unsafe - they just fly with different
parameters than I do.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect
the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable
emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact
lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good
idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what
direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the
flight.

So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window for
a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous. Sectionals
give very broad altitude and terrain information. There is no way you will
have time during a true emergency to use them or your preflight planning of
emergency landing spots. You will look down, pick a spot, and follow the
emergency checklist. At least I hope you will. I have had two in-flight
emergencies, one in IMC. Preflight route planning would have had absolutely
no impact on the situations. Having emergency checklists memorized and
concentration on flying the plane was completely the key.

In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone
would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If
you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little
chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the
terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to
know what the ground is like along their route.

Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid open
water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest is
flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are pointy.
Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional to know
this stuff.


You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far
away from any services.

Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight
decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of
having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having
considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during
the flight.

I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
do it all the time.


Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel
left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available.
Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than
that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't
be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.


Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
that is spelled) as well. Do you do that? And, more reasonably, by your
reasoning you should clearly invest in better and safer technology than you
have. Anything else is clearly unsafe.

The reality is there is no reason for you to do either. You fly to the level
of planning and safety that is legal and within your comfort zone. You sound
like a prudent pilot. I'm happy to know you are out there flying safely when
our paths cross. But your insistence on your particular brand of safety is
not convincing me.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before you
take off? I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a
restaurant and asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.


I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
cross-checking?

I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and see
what town it is. I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways,
VORs, NDBs, intersections. All easily done in the air.



IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots
of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there
who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared
to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's
clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during
my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't
pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely
abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety
of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of
silicon.

I guess we are at the agree to disagree point. I don't see myself abdicating
anything. I'm not making any judgments about your level of safety when you
fly - other than knowing you spend more time plotting on charts I have no
idea if you are a safe pilot of not. But none of your arguments you put
forth here convince me that your methodology is safer than mine. In fact, I
would argue that the level of redundancy and the experience I have in
putting the technology to use might make my methodology safer than yours.
But then again, I may be wrong...


Pete

Michael 182 wrote:
I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?

Michael


I always do flight plans. I find them interesting. (Yeah, I'm weird,
but knowing it is half the battle, right.)

Actually, I'm a purist, When I'm flying VFR, I use pilotage and dead
reckoning as my primary navigation devices. I feel I failed if I have
to refer to my GPS.

Flying IFR, I file airways because I like being able to backup the VORs
with the GPS. With GPS direct, I have no backup means other than the
very cumbersome cross VOR radial.

"Michael 182" wrote:

[...]
I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute. [...]

Another way of saying this is that roughly estimating these quantities
in one's head can be accurate to (say) 25%, which is sufficient for
trips that don't have unusual risk characteristics. If the airplane's
endurance may get tight, or ground services iffy, then more formal
planning may be called for. But at least in my case, that is very rare.

You're making a lot of sense on this issue, Michael.


- FChE