Navigation flight planning during training

On 2007-03-13 10:16:50 -0700, "Andy Lutz" said:

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.

A diversion should be relatively easy. Just get in the habit every time
you fly of thinking, "If I had to go somewhere else, where would it be,
how would I get there, and how long would it take?" Then, when you
actually do divert, the only thing left is to set up the radios. By the
time you are ready for the check ride it will be so ingrained that it
should be practically automatic.

I have known students who had to divert on their first solo! You would
think three times around the pattern would be easy enough, but airports
do close. :-) Wayne Perry, former CEO of AT&T Wireless and one of the
prime movers in the cell phone industry, told me that he had to do just
that on his first solo at Renton Airport more than 20 years ago. After
he did his first touch and go, a Beech twin managed to land gear up on
the runway (bet it was the flaps/gear thing, eh?). Wayne not only had
to divert to Boeing Field, he had to come back several hours later to
pick up his instructor! (Things were a little different in those days.)


What does a typical checkride look like?

Pretty friendly as a rule. Some examiners are more business-like than
others. He asks you the same stuff your instructor keeps asking you.
Then you go fly and demonstrate the same stuff you had to demonstrate
to your instructor. Then you go home, probably end with some sort of
simulated emergency, fill out a little paperwork, wait for the examiner
to leave and do your victory dance.


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.

You bet. Use everything at your disposal. If the examiner says,
"Divert!" and he doesn't shut off the GPS, then by all means use the
GPS. Really, it is not difficult. If you are having trouble with it,
this is the place to ask questions. But wait until you are studying
diversions, of course.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-03-13 15:21:11 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

"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?

Hey, what have you got against sextants!?

(I finished reading "Fate is the Hunter" a couple weeks ago.)

Frankly I don't trust any method that involves pens or pencils - the pens
are likely to run out of ink at the worst time and I always manage to break
the points on the pencils.

;-)

Having used a sextant, I have to say that they are extremely accurate.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article ,
Jim Logajan 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?

Hey, what have you got against sextants!?

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

Hi Andrew;
Although its true that once we get out into the big bad world with our
new pilotcertificates, for simple point to point VFR, a lot of us end up
making sure we have enough fuel, then take off and fly the line from A
to B that we stole from the nearest VOR which gives us a magnetic course
that we correct for wind into a true heading as we go. :-))
I'm from the old school that believes you don't use the shortcuts unless
you know how to plan it the LONG way. I have always taught navigation
from scratch from the wind triangle onward.
I had a student who told me it was sort of like his Pharmacy degree. You
go to school for years and learn how to use a tub and pestle to ground
the right powder and ingredients into the right prescription, then the
first thing you do on graduation is buy a drug store; count pills into a
container, and make tons of money!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

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?

When I was a student, we laboriously filled out flight logs and worked out
each leg with an E6B. What stupidity.

Obviously, the modern way (and a perfectly reasonable way) is to let a
computer crunch the numbers for you. But, you still should be able to do
an entire flight plan with nothing more than a chart, a plotter, and an E6B
in under 5 minutes.

Measure the total overall distance of your route. In these days of
GPS-direct, that usually means a single straight line. If you're flying
VOR to VOR, it's really easy to just add up the distances marked on an IFR
en-route chart.

Next, get a magnetic course. You could do this with a plotter, or just
look at a VOR rose and make a reasonable guess (if you get it to within 10
degrees, you're fine).

Next, look at the winds aloft forecasts along your route of flight and
planned altitude. Take a WAG at an average speed and direction. Do NOT do
any math. Just average them in your head. If you spend more than 30
seconds on this, you're working too hard.

Now, work one single E6B wind triangle problem to come up with an average
GS for the whole flight. Flip the E6B over and work one single
time-speed-distance problem to come up with a ETE.

That's it, you're done. Lots of guessing and rough averaging, but that's
really all the problem deserves.

When I took my Commercial ride last year, I showed my DE a flight plan from
DUATS. Had all the waypoints, winds, magnetic variation stuff, ground
speeds, etc. He then proceeded to ask, "How did the computer come up with
all that? What does each of those things mean?" I basically had to
demonstrate the first couple legs with a plotter & E6B to show I understood
the "traditional" stuff going on behind the scenes.


"Tim" wrote in message
...
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?
[snip]

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." ?

On Mar 13, 11:48 am, "Michael"
wrote:
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.


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. Then we use
pilotage to make refinements along the way. 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?

To reiterate, I am not claiming one way is better than the other; I am
simply bringing this up as a discussion topic. 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 have yet to see a convincing
argument for the pen & paper method, except for claims that it is
'basic information all pilots should know'.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
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?

What if it /wasn't/ necessary to fly it like a simple diversion? What
if, say, a WAG puts you 10 miles short of an otherwise closer field
because of headwinds (speaking of WAG's....), when a proper overview and
plan would take you to a farther, but downwind 'drome?

I believe the point is that if you're very proficient with paper
planning, it can be very fast and more accurate than winging it and
allowing a computer to come up with your (now rather useless) original plan.

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'.

I think the hypothetical has been posted previously by someone else, but
try to place yourself into a position where you have no
computer/Internet access/electricity; will you still be able to handle
the planning and duties necessary to create and file a plan without
computational assistance and in a reasonable timeframe (ie, before your
briefing expires)?

Will you understand why each number goes in each box, what it means to
your flight, and how you should use it? Will you have enough confidence
in your performance data to trust yourself to get to the next airport?

Planning, like most things in aviation is "use it or lose it", like
following the direct-to all your life and then being told to make an NDB
circle-to-land. Will you be as fresh and up to date with the procedure
if you practice it regularly, or if you allow yourself to fall into
complacency by trusting the information (both in veracity and in it's
availability)?

TheSmokingGnu

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

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.

Pilotage and DR seem to be the most neglected skills among the pilots I fly
with. On a BFR, I'll usually find out where they normally fly, and take
them off in a different direction, then give them a diversion. It always
amazes me how poorly people do at this. It's not just a PTS exercise, it's
the fundamental ability to figure out where you are, where you want to go,
and how to get there.

I watch this scenario play out all the time. I ask, "how long will it take
to get there?". They look at the chart, appear to be summoning up the
wisdom of long dead spirits, and guess, "10 minutes". It's often painful
to get them to actually measure the distance (even if it's just estimating
how many 20-mile wide VOR compass roses they can lay down along the route),
estimate our airspeed (even if it's just "about 2 miles a minute"), and do
one simple math problem to come up with a number of minutes.

And, then, once I beat that out of them, I try to get them to look at their
watch, figure out what time it is now, add the ETE to that, and come up
with when we should be there.

Now, here's the kicker. Let's say they come up with 10 minutes. We go
along for 3 or 4 minutes and I say, "Are we there yet, or have we passed it
already?" It is astounding how few can come up with, "I estimated 10
minutes and we've been flying for 4, so it's got to still be in front of
us". Sometimes, I'll watch the airport slide by, give it a few more
minutes, and ask the same question, with similarly disappointing results.

On 2007-03-12 22:28:59 -0700, "Andrew Sarangan" said:

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?

I would expect a student to be proficient at electronic flight
planning. There are so many tools availabe, many of them free, that
there is no reason not to be.

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.

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.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor