Cross Country - Flying High

[Bob Denny]

Hi - I'm a new helicopter pilot (rated last June) with just short of 3,000 hours fixed wing over a lifetime (all civilian, no instructing, no right seat, mostly just PIC IFR/Glider/Multi). So I have tons of cross country experience all over the western US. Typical of a fixed-wing guy, my solo cross country in the H269C was 4 hours, 45 minutes with 2 fuel stops and 4 landings. Much of it was over the wide open spaces of southern Arizona, away from the city. OK, enough background.

I have occasion to accompany a very experienced helicopter pilot on a trip to bring a 206-type helicopter back from the mod shop. It'll be a west to east run, with the prevailing winds aloft. I'm pretty sure he's going to be OK with me flying the trip, and I want to plan it and fly my plan. I'm also pretty sure he's going to want to fly it low, like 1000 AGL. This makes me uncomfortable. If I were alone, I'd want to fly it at typical VFR enroute altitudes (it's Winter, no problems with DA or temp-limits). My thoughts are

I can be in radar contact with center and get flight following
If the engine quits I have lots of time to pick a spot and flexibility to do my auto
The probable tailwinds aloft are often higher at 5500 or 7500 than down low, so there are fuel and time savings there
The air will probably be smoother, especially around the hilly areas, and definitely around the mountains

I have discussed flying at enroute altitudes with the old salts where I volunteer as a helper and they always seem to get uneasy. I pinned one guy down and he started talking about "What if you get a chip light?". OK, 1,500 FPM or so during an auto, so it takes 4 minutes to kill off 6,000 feet. One guy said you shouldn't do an auto on a chip light because rolling off power could precipitate the failure that's probably coming. In my pea brain, reducing the loads on the power train might make it last longer?

So here's my question: Is it worth forgoing all of the above advantages to reduce the chip light to landing time by 3.5 minutes?

[arismount]

If it's your show, yes fly it high for all the advantages you mention. A west-to-east in the winter should probably get you some pretty good tailwinds and if flying in mountainous areas, extra height above the peaks and ridges when crossing them is your friend in terms of turbulence avoidance.

You might compromise with the other guy when it comes to a leg or part of a leg that's scenic and where turbulence isn't a factor. Seeing the sights helicopter style is best done at a reasonably low altitude.

When you are planning on going places like an airplane does, it's best to plan on flying it like an airplane is flown: get on upstairs, set an appropriate cruise power, and enjoy the benefits. Those who insist on flying helicopters hundreds of miles cross-country at 300 to 500 feet AGL because of possible emergencies are (in my opinion) engaging in some needless dramatics.

[zorab64]

Hi Bob, welcome to the wonderful world of rotary.

I'd concur with aris - use the wind for all the advantages you mention, but enjoy the ability to take a safe scenic view from 1000' or so if appropriate. You can't fly rotary in a "might-get-a-chip-light" profile, or you'd go mad - it's just that most of us do jobs that benefit from being able to use the versatiliy of the machine at relatively low level. Getting up high might be fun sometimes, but we're be hitting our heads on airspace most of the time anyway!

In 30+ years I've had a handful of chip lights (engine, MGB & TRGB) and all have resulted in a safe landing, without significant sweat - most showing minimal metal on the detector. Having read a lot of reports for professional development, I can't actually remember reading one where a chip resulted in a seizure - we'd all be paranoid if that were the case!
The only advice I'd give would be to respect aris' words re mountain turbulence, since not doing so, especially when new to rotary, will much more likely get you than a chip light!

Enjoy the trip & let us know how you get on, it should be fun as the 206 is a trusty bird. :ok:

Happy Christmas,
z

[Gordy]

to plan it and fly my plan.

Hmmm.... I have flown from Northern California to Missouri in February every year for about 5 years. There is no plan other than it changes hourly based upon weather. I have also done the route many other times going both ways.

I'm also pretty sure he's going to want to fly it low, like 1000 AGL.

Pretty low.....ha, other than power checks I can count the times on one hand that i have been above 600 AGL in the last 10 years. Bear in mind that you do not want to be high above the Rockies you will exceed MSL limits.

If it was me, you would not go above 500 AGL, and it has to do with comfort level.

[spencer17]

I'm totally with Gordy.
Between 10' and 500' depending on the terrain.
Everything above makes me feel :yuk:

[Camp Freddie]

There seems to a trend to a different approach to this type of question depending on whether you are from the US or the UK.

Generally speaking I was taught to fly around at around 2000-3000 feet as long as airspace and weather allows, and that's what I taught other people and generally what I do still.

This allows sufficient time in case an autorotation is required for a forced landing etc, but even at 3000 you are still going to be on the ground in about 90 seconds, having taught forced landings hundreds of times I know how altitude is critical for the outcome especially when people are not current with autorotations.

Deliberately flying at 500'-1000' when you don't have too seems to me to have far more con's than pro's, especially when you try to do a forced landing when you potentially only have 15-30 seconds before you are on ground to 1) enter auto 2) turn into wind 3) choose a field 4) mayday call 5) shutdown checks 6) engine off landing.

Actually in my current job we generally are outbound at 5000' and inbound at 4000' which gives 1) better fuel burn 2) better comms 3) keeps you above all the nonsense going on below you with people flying lower level 😄

My instructor told me "the higher you are, the safer you are" and generally I agree with him as long as you can get on the ground 5 mins max.

[SASless]

Long Cross Country flying in a helicopter......I am solidly with Gordy on this!

I have done many long flights.....like from Deadhorse to Lafayette and Unga Island to San Diego. (Alaska to the southern border of the USA).

If you fly high you enjoy certain benefits but lose the chance of a life time.

This part of the World is best enjoyed down where you can see it and the people who live there.

I tried to use Non-Tower controlled airports, preferably those with grass runways, for my fuel stops....and night stops. The food and beer seems better in small towns for some reason. The Hospitality is always much better.

Fly at whatever altitude you like.....but in Helicopters lower is better for reasons that make Flying fun and not just another Task.

There is something about picking a heading....without drawing a line on the map....and seeing what you see along the way. With the advent of GPS finding your fuel stop is so much easier....and finding that spot on the map every hour so you know where you are.....or those places you see that you would like to come back to another day can be marked for later reference.

For me....it is IFR.....I follow rivers, railways, roads, ridges, ravines, radials....or a compass needle....and ENJOY the trip. It is so nice to be able to GO somewhere in a helicopter rather than the usual kind of flying we do. Get the most enjoyment out of it you can!


Separate Topic.....Chip Lights.

Chip Lights are over rated as indicators of dire emergencies.

Most are false indications.

Some are valid indications but show only normal wear particles or Fuzz. Clean them and back into the air....save the material found.

Some are valid and have indications of abnormal wear.....usually the procedure is clean the detector, flush the oil system and cooler...then back into the air and monitor the situation.

Then there are the ones....which are very very very rare...that have real and serious indications of a problem.....which usually are a follow-on to a series of all the other types.

You will never see part numbers, serial numbers or other such Large pieces of stuff on a Chip Detector or see a Chip Detector come on immediately before a catastrophic Gear Box or Engine Failure.....they just do not work that way.

So planning your flight around a Chip Detector is not something you need to do ever....and whatever you do.....land the helicopter at a nice place for the Engineer to work on the thing....and one that has a nice Hotel/Bar/Diner for you to enjoy while the Engineer checks the Aircraft.

[Bob Denny]

Wow, thanks to all of the folks who replied here. Taking all of the info in, I will fly enroute except over the scenic mountains east of our starting point, Carlsbad CA. Most of it is just open desert and we fly over that stuff all the time in the performance of our job.

Thanks again for the great input and variety of philosophies. I'm hooked on this group!! I'm sure I'll have other questions in the future. And maybe I can contribute here too!!

[26-Dec at 0522 UTC -- PS: I've posted two messages with photos and they have not yet appeared. I suspect I am on moderation due to being a newbie. I hope I can get past this, because the discussion has now passed me by.]

[SASless]

As one gets older....one tends to fly lower....ever wonder why that is?

Out of one base I worked at flying Bell 212's....the youngest pilot launched off calling his climb to FL100.....oldest pilot launched off a few minutes later on the same route....and called climbing to FL001. There is a a message there some where!

[joecub]

Go low, enjoy all the wildlife you will encounter, enjoy the incredible scenery you will encounter....enjoy all the reasons we fly helicopters.... If high flight is what you really enjoy, airliners are for you.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Bob, it gets down to an issue of trust. To wit: Do you trust your aircraft to get you to Point B? Most helicopter pilots don’t. Either consciously or sub-consciously, many helicopter pilots have a nagging feeling of dread that a catastrophic failure of some sort will occur which will require them to be on the ground RIGHTFRIGGIN’ NOW! And so they fly low, as SASless notes. They don’t want to be “way up there” when Something Bad happens.

I’m no Sigmund Freud, but I think I know why. Most helicopter pilots are pretty untrustworthy people. There, I said it. And it’s true. If you’ve met many of them you can vouch for this on your own. You can’t trust a helicopter pilot to tell you the time of day, unfortunately. Some will vehemently pretend to deny this, but again, stick around this industry for a while and you’ll see what I mean.

Hand and hand with this personality “quirk” is the fact that most helicopter pilots don’t trust anything or anybody. This lack of trust explains why so many helicopter pilots are fearful, paranoid atheists. (Want to know how paranoid a helicopter pilot is? Just ask him about politics - then stand back!)

Helicopter pilots feel that they are absolutely in charge of their own destiny, and giving up even one small iota of that control is totally unacceptable and abhorrent. Helicopter pilots don’t trust the maintenance guys and they certainly don’t trust their machines, heavens no! Thus, that helpless feeling of being up high in a helicopter when the poop hits the fan is utterly intolerable; too much for them to bear.

They’ll rationalize it. They’ll worry, “What if you get a chip light?” Or, “What if you lose all your transmission oil?” Or, “What if the engine catches on fire?” Or, "What if the rotor blades fly off?" Because in their mind (either the front or back of their mind), every time they fly all of those things are imminent. They’ll tell you, “Oh, the scenery is so much better down low!” But that’s just a mask to hide their real fear. And yes, it’s fear.

Like you, I fly airplanes too. When I’m flying along up high in a single-engine airplane I sometimes wonder to myself, “Gee, what if the engine caught on fire? How fast could I get ‘er down before my feet burned off?” The answer to that could be troubling. But then I ask myself, “...And how likely is that to happen?” The answer is: Not very. So I relax and have myself a sandwich.

There are a number of emergencies that might cause a typical helicopter pilot to want to be on the ground pretty quickly. There’s always the dreaded chip-light (“LAND IMMEDIATELY!!!) that makes a lot of pilots panic. There are also a lot of spinny things (bearings and linkages and such) in our aircraft that can come askew. But aside from in-flight fire, the worst-case scenario is probably a total loss of transmission oil. Yikes! Does that ever happen??

Like a few of the guys on this board, I’ve been flying for a living for over 30 years and I’ve got a logbook full of hours, mostly in single-engine helicopters. And me, I fly high. It’s cooler up there, often smoother, and sometimes you can find a ripping tailwind. Plus, I like the view from altitude. If I were that distrustful of my equipment…if I were that paranoid…that afraid of Something Bad happening to my helicopter, I just could not fly it at all - not at any altitude! But see, I also have faith. Faith in the designers, faith in the builders, and faith in the maintainers. Without that faith, I doubt I could even climb into one of these crazy contraptions in the first place.

If the pilot with whom you are ferrying that helicopter is a “typical”helicopter pilot, I’ll bet that you’ll likely spend the whole trip dogging along down at 1,000’ agl. Or less. If that happens, you’ll know some other things about him too...perhaps things that you'd rather not know.

[rick1128]

Over the years I see many pilots out there flying as low as possible, just because they can. Which is probably one of the worst reasons for doing so. I would strongly recommend that you fly enroute at least 200 AGL. The reason is that below 200 AGL obstructions are not required to be marked, painted or lite. Way too many wire strike accidents happen enroute with pilots flying low just because they can.

As for going higher, keep in mind that unlike many airplanes your maximum speed decreases due to altitude. So unless there is a significant increase in ground speed there is no major benefit to higher altitudes.

Enjoy your trip.

[albatross]

If you want a great sight seing experience go low.
If you want and Wx permits go high - fuel burn greatly decreased and depending on winds a better ground speed and perhaps a smoother ride.

Remember that even though your indicated VNE seems low that your actual TAS will be pretty close to VNE at the lower level.
Let's use 130 kts VNE as an example and say it decrease 4KTS /1000 above 3000 ft so your vne at 9000 would be 106 knots.
131 TAS at 1000 using +13c
135 TAS at 3000 using standard atmoshphere +9c
121 TAS at 9000 using SA -3c

Oh yeah note also that VNE is predicated on DA (density alt ) not PA ( pressure alt.) So take that into account especially if flying in high temps.

Don't worry about chip lights.

If you need to get down decrease Q to about 10 or 15 and run that sucker up to VNE you will just about peg the VSI. Give yourself LOTS repeat LOTS of room to level off at the bottom. Monitor RPM on the way down. LOL

I am sure others be be along to disagree with me but that's my opinion.
Have a great and safe flight and post some photos.

[Bob Denny]

Once again thanks to everyone who provided their thoughts on the question at hand. Here's a pic I took 10 days ago in the Superstition Wilderness Area. We had dropped off a mountain rescue/medic team and were waiting for them to bring the injured hiker down to us. The glints on the nose and windshield are from the Moon. Can you say good goggle night??? I am a "part time" volunteer (armed/uniformed) TFO for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Well, not too part time... 1200+ hours on duty this year. I did not make this "off airport" landing! I'm not the real pilot, though I do get to fly and get instruction.

http://solo.dc3.com/forumimg/Fox1NVG.JPG

[Shawn Coyle]

I'd go high - better radio coms, if you have a tailwind your time will be shorter, and your fuel consumption will be much less.
Watch the Vne as it decreases with altitude (but as a FW driver you know about TAS being higher for the same IAS).

You'll also be able to watch the weather, and God forbid if the engine fails, you'll have more choice of landing places.
Enjoy the flight and take a large storage card in your camera.
Happy new Year!

[Bob Denny]

Shawn -- You're one of my heroes! I was at HAI for your Excellence in Communications award. My decision to pay for the awards banquet was driven by my having read Cyclic and Collective during my "basic training" leading up to my checkride in June 2013. I'm glad I went:

http://solo.dc3.com/forumimg/HAIAwards.jpg

Thank you so much for your input!

-- Bob

[Bob Denny]

http://solo.dc3.com/forumimg/CoyleAward.jpg

[pilot and apprentice]

FH1100, as much I as I dislike your rant and religious/trust aspersions to my professional I'll just say: off thread, please take it somewhere else.

--------------------------------

Bob, like others I can only give you my own opinion on this matter. I too have some fixed wing time up in the levels which I know has made a difference.

I will choose my own cruise height based on all the factors: fuel economy, OAT (I hate cooking in my suit!), scenery, terrain (ie mountain winds, water), comms range, bird risk, traffic congestion, and so on. Please don't discount the idea of just enjoying the ride.

There are days when I will cruise just a few hundred feet off the ground soaking in the sights, but I am very aware of the higher bird risk and reduced communication. Other days I will be a mile or two above the ground where it's hard to even tell we are moving, but I am keenly watching the weather below and concious of how the gearboxes are behaving.

As far as the component failure theories, I can only offer hangar stories: when my engine has quit I wanted altitude, when the gearboxes lost oil I wanted to be low.
I've had both happen. Ironically, the most notable auto started high, I was very relaxed flying to my chosen spot, and was only able to see the rough terrain when it was nearly too late to choose another, go figure.
With both C-Box's that went, I was both high and without a place to go. I was fortunate that they kept playing as long as I needed them to. I have have had enough friends who weren't so lucky.

The best advice I can give is to have an open mind. Plan each flight based on the merits of today, with the benefit of the wisdom of yesterday, not with a fear of the unknown.

And if possible, like SAS, my cross country/ferry flights are planned one amazing sight/adventure to the next. Never in a a straight line!

[Shawn Coyle]

Bob:
Many thanks for the 'plug'. See you at HAI this year? I'll be teaching again.

[Bob Denny]

Yes I will be there. Which class are you teaching?

[Bob Denny]

decrease Q to about 10 or 15What does this mean? Is Q torque and are the numbers in %?

edited: Also thanks for those numbers... being fixed wing guy I know TAS increases with altitude, but I was surprised how the Vne decrease affects the max TAS with altitude. I probably won't be flying anywhere near Vne though.. will take my time and save a bit of fuel (that's gonna be another question soon...).

[FH1100 Pilot]

pilot and apprentice, all I'll say is- if the shoe fits...then I was probably talking about you. And truly, you sound like one of those paranoid types - as you yourself admit, when you fly high you've always got one eye pinned on what your gearboxes are doing. Why? Don't you trust them?

Oh, and a combining gearbox failure - I'm assuming you're talking about a PT-6 Twinpack here? A "C-box" failure is not the same as a MGB failure. A failure of the combining gearbox would just give you a complete loss of power, right? I mean, it wouldn't affect the ability of the rotor to turn. So in that case it would still be better to be high, to better select a proper forced-landing area.

[albatross]

I should have been clearer in my post.
Q is torque and the 10-15 is % of torque.
Long time since I have flown a 206 but have done some long ferries in them.
I have always found it strange that the RFM has no fuel flow VS alt / torque setting charts for cruise.

[Shawn Coyle]

Bob:
I'll be teaching Ray Prouty's class, as he's retired, and graciously allowed me to take over the reins.

Albatross:
There are no range and endurance charts in the 'approved' part of the flight manual as there is no legal requirement for them. They are often in the 'Manufacturer's Data' section. PM me if you want more info.

[SASless]

You buying the Whisky this Year?

[albatross]

Thanks Shawn.
I highly doubt I will be flying a Jetbox anytime soon but thanks for the kind offer.

I have the charts for the machines I fly now. As you say sometimes you have to dig deep to find the charts. In the 92 I recall they are in "supplementary performance"

Due to the long legs we fly offshore we nearly always go high and upon occasion need to use best range power. Amazing how much range you can get if you really need it.

I recall that the AS350 D with the LTS101 would go a heck of a long way further down the road at 9000 -10000 ft using "best range" vs 500 AGL and 80% Q.
A lot of folks just don't know a lot about the use of altitude and best range power as they just never need to do it.

Cheers and all the best in 2014

[Devil 49]

Traveling by air is best by airplane. Cross country just doesn't have a lot of real flying: takeoffs, departures, approaches and landings.
En route legs are autopilot stuff. It's all I can do to stay awake after the first hour. Although there is something to be said for the occasional view from short leg altitudes, that low altitude view almost always comes with some increased risk.

I would plan for, in this order:
friendliest territory for forced/precautionary landings (higher expands the available area with highway access and waiting for maintenance coffee geometrically);
shortest ETE;
least fuel flow;
smoothest ride.
With GPS, efficiency is easy, one has quick access to ground speed information. I set up 600 fpm climb max continuous and watch that number until it starts to fall, then fiddle with cruise altitude and power, if fuel is an issue. Flight time is way more expensive than fuel, so unless I'm stretching the margin above minimum, I cruise as quickly as possible.
Weather complicates the issue, especially vis. The increased visual range at altitude can make weather issues easier to deal with.

Helo pilots fly low because that's what we mostly do on 2 - 20 minute legs, when it's not logical to spend a lot of time in the vertical. Lots of rationalization of phobias in that "what if you're on fire/transmission seizing" talk.

[SASless]

Also important factors.....who is paying the bill for the trip, is there a deadline for getting to the destination, and are you doing the trip for "work" or "pleasure".

One of my trips south took me along some very interesting country until I broke through the Rockies at Jasper....then it was 135 Degrees Heading for a couple of Days....and the further I went...the flatter and less attractive it got until I hit parts of Texas and Oklahoma where there were thousands of abandoned houses and those Wind Mill water pump things standing up everywhere.

Had I been at umpteen thousand feet....I would have missed all that....which would have been a shame as I would have missed a History Lesson.

Reading Town Names off Water Towers and Train Stations can be interesting as well....or getting the mileage to some City from an Interstate Highway Sign.

Stopping at a small airstrip and sharing a Cup of Coffee with the locals is not a bad thing either.

This business of Helicopter Flying is supposed to be "fun" and sometimes being able to just fly the machine and enjoy the scenery reminds us of why we took up this profession of ours. Those chances are rare.....don't waste them!

[Gordy]

Shawn:

I will be in the accident investigation class that you and your business partner are doing. We can reminisce about the bent air frames I showed you under the tarps a few years ago.... :cool: I have the pictures prior to them being moved still.....

[albatross]

LOL - I know of what you speak SASless.
Once ferried a 205 in December to LA from Montreal via Dallas and El Paso due awful WX. all the way.
Never got above 1000 agl till past El Paso and had a 20 KT. headwind all the way.
Great flight sure saw a lot of neat stuff in folks back yards.
Met a lot of good people at all the small airports we stopped at along the way.
Made it home for Xmas too!

[tottigol]

Helicopter pilots fly like they fly, if their day to day activity involves flying at low level, then that's how they manage their flights, all of them, because it's their comfort zone. Get away from the warm embrace of the "TAWS RED ZONE" and they'll feel naked. and exposed.
I agree with the OP, no reason to fly a cross country at 500 ago, perhaps if it's a short flight and you are extremely familiar with the terrain you can do that on a good VMC day.
I found that doing the scud running thing grossly reduces your situational awareness, increases the attention given to obstacle avoidance and, depending on where you are flying, may make communications with ATC more difficult; not to mention reducing the chances of a succesfull autorotation if one has to be performed.

[SASless]

In Un-Controlled Airspace....what requirement is there to communicate with ATC?

If you file a VFR Flight Plan what requirement do you have to do a Position Report?

In parts of the USA....it can be easy to avoid "having" to communicate with ATC for most of the day.

[thechopper]

of going fast and high? If you want to get handling experience in helicopters you want to spend as much time as you can doing it; 20 kts headwind is a bonus; more T/Os and Ldgs are a bonus; turbulence improves your handling skills and Situational Awareness; limited endurance = SA
;)
'Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
shouting 'Holy ****...what a ride!'

[Bob Denny]

In Un-Controlled Airspace....what requirement is there to communicate with ATC?In the US, much of the airspace is "controlled" in that you must be on an IFR flight plan if weather is below visual. I assume you mean airspace within which you must be in 2-way communication with ATC, and in some cases (Class A/B/C) you must be under ATC control. I won't be in any class A ("A"bove ... FL180) ha ha, but if I'm not around any major aerodromes, or near any tower-controlled aerodromes (so in Class E for 'E'verywhere), then you are not required to talk to ATC. But flying out in the open desert southwest, I can easily be 20+ miles from anything and not have any mobile phone service. If I have a problem, it would be nice to have VFR flight following. Also, if operating within fixed wing altitude structure, in my mind it is entirely possible that a faster fixed wing aircraft could run up behind me and I would not see it. For this, radar following from the Air Route Traffic Control Center ("center") is something I'd like as well. So I would want to talk to ATC (center) if flying at a VFR altitude (odd thousands plus 500 for eastbound).
If you file a VFR Flight Plan what requirement do you have to do a Position Report?None. You simply have to close your flight plan with a Flight Service Station after landing (or sooner if you wish). But I won't file a VFR flight plan, rather just "pick up" VFR flight following from center.
In parts of the USA....it can be easy to avoid "having" to communicate with ATC for most of the day.Yes, but it has its advantages, not the least of which it can be entertaining, it can help you know the weather ahead, and useful in an unusual or emergency situation. I don't mind it.

http://solo.dc3.com/forumimg/WestAzDist.png

[Bob Denny]

And to everyone, once again, thanks very much.

My life's aeronautical experience is pretty much validated here as far as the personalities and "concerns" ... I am of the "know the odds" persuasion ... irrational fears are not my thing! It's been really wonderful to hear from a variety of people, how you think and what is important to each of you.

[ShyTorque]

I have never had the luxury of going flying just for the ride to enjoy the view. We are paid to get our pax to their destination as fast as reasonably possible, in good shape.

One thing hardly mentioned here in the discussion is wind effect. Climbing may be beneficial, or not, depending on the day. Generally speaking I simply aim to find the best available groundspeed.

If it means an IMC transit, so be it. We have the luxury of being able to fly VMC/VFR or IMC/IFR in Class G airspace more or less as we please (OAT/icing level permitting), although our maximum altitude is almost always below 4,500 feet, to stay below controlled airspace. Sometimes we will change from VFR to IFR a few times on the same flight.

[SASless]

Bob,

If one stays VFR, avoids Tower Controlled Airports, listens to ATIS and other Automated Weather sources, and files a flight plan.....as not having any flight following resource would be a very big NO NO in my book, the need to chat to someone gets rather insignificant. A Radio call each hour to make a position report is not very burdensome and a phone call during each refueling stop is simple enough to do.

A bit of creative thought....and a quelling of an internal need to get all formal and complex in a cross country trip....call it thinking outside the box if you will....grants one a rare opportunity to enjoy that sheer pleasure of flying much as it was done in the old days back when there was very little but Topographical data and some VOR/NDB or LF Airway data on the map along with the Airport data.

Now the VFR Sectional Maps are so cluttered it takes a Philadelphia Lawyer to figure it all out properly. When you get out West where things are far apart....and the Map starts getting less cluttered is where you can begin to revert to basic helicopter flying.

Why would you want to fly IFR and look at the same ol' thing when all that beauty lies below you?

[Bob Denny]

Post-action report. I flew the first part high to cross the mountains then drifted down to 3500 across the Imperial Valley (Thermal) to Blythe for a fuel stop. Then I flew Blythe to Deer Valley at 1000 AGL along the I-10 freeway. I have to say I preferred the 1000AGL part and I had a place to auto all the way. 3:45 total and gorgeous weather. Winds aloft to 6000 were light and variable!! Bad luck there.

Thanks again, this was a most excellent discussion. I learned a lot by "listening" to all of you!!!

[snotcicles]

I've flown diagonally across North America several times and my preferred altitude is in the 1000' AGL range. Mostly because being at 6000' AGL is boring for 8+ hours a day :p

[MLH]

Interesting discussion.

As PIC, most of my time airborne has been 1000 AGL or below, I don't have a FW rating. On a ferry flight from the Robinson factory I spent a short time above 4,000 AGL from Northern Ca. into Oregon, what I found most notable was the loss of the sensation of speed that I was so accustomed to. The feeling of standing stationary on the edge of a building took some getting used to. I've been on a few solo X-country flights in a C172 and did not have the same sensation, possibly because of the limited view. I feel compelled to go upstairs and check things out again.

Mike