PDA

View Full Version : some navigation questions


Plasmech
23rd Mar 2011, 18:43
Well I am waiting for good weather to take my 11th lesson. Pretty much from now until solo I will be doing this lesson...basically pattern work. Things have gone quite well so far with the exception of almost landing on top of another aircraft that snuck in underneath us from a LONG final without making any radio calls. Neither me nor my CFI picked him up after both dutiful visual scans and a look at the traffic scope. I really hope that doesn't happen again!

Anyway, with all this rain I have been studying cross country navigation. I have some questions on the topic that I was hoping the forum could possibly help me with:

1. Charts. When planning a cross country, it is necessary to draw nice thick black lines on them to show the route. The charts aren't exactly cheap. How do pilots usually handle this? Meaning, is a special pen or lamination or something used so that the course can be erased after the trip is complete...so that the chart does not become full of confusing intersecting lines all over the place? Sorry if this is a very dull and boring question.

2. Same question on the E6-B wind side. It's necessary to draw a line and a point on the face of the wind computer...over time it will just fill up with lines.

3. VFR training videos in my King School's Cessna program all show the King's flying over western terrain with *very* obvious landmarks...lakes, rivers, mountains, towns in the middle of nowhere, etc. Where I live, it's all suburban. Everywhere you look are houses, more houses, towns, and more towns. The landmarks are not NEARLY as obvious as they are in the King videos and quite honestly they really make it look a lot easier than it really is in an area like mine where finding a landmark is sometimes like finding a needle in a bucket of needles. Does anybody else fly over what you consider somewhat difficult VFR territory?

4. GPS or not...I understand that I MUST learn to navigate by pilotage, both for safety reasons in the case of equipment failure and for my check-ride, and because it's just fun (when you can find your landmark!). However, it's not 1950. We HAVE the technology to never get lost. Should I always take a GPS with me, even during training, to avoid getting lost? I guess I would feel really silly getting lost because my GPS is sitting in my truck. Anyone feel the same way? Obviously the GPS can fail, but it's guaranteed to fail if left on the ground.

5. Autopilot coupled to GPS...a question I've wondered for a while. When aircraft are flying a GPS course and there is a decent crosswind, is the flying actually inefficient compared to simply flying a heading? OK what I mean here is that the GPS does not know that there is any wind. Say you are flying coupled to GPS on a heading of 270 magnetic. The wind is out of 360 magnetic at 20 knots. The GPS is going to fly a unit of distance, let's say 200 feet, then check where it is again (I am making up these numbers). GPS says OK, we're too far south, bank right a bit. 200 feet further, OK we're on course, roll out. 200 more feet, we're south again, bank right...on and on and on.

If one was hand flying, or had the AP set on a heading, say 280 magnetic which would take care of that wind (it's probably not actually 280, just an example) the aircraft is always "clean", meaning there are not constantly aileron's dropping or rising into the relative wind. Would this not be more efficient flying?

I know, a lot of questions. Hopefully this thread will help not only me but others as well. Thanks for reading.

And Guppy, I am fully expecting your expertise here, don't let me down!

WelshHopper
23rd Mar 2011, 18:52
1. Charts. When planning a cross country, it is necessary to draw nice thick black lines on them to show the route. The charts aren't exactly cheap. How do pilots usually handle this? Meaning, is a special pen or lamination or something used so that the course can be erased after the trip is complete...so that the chart does not become full of confusing intersecting lines all over the place? Sorry if this is a very dull and boring question.



Certainly, if you buy the charts from a well known shop, with a number of airfield branches, and an online presence :E the charts come laminated.

You can mark these with a 'chinagraph pencil' or even a permanent marker (type you use on CD's), if you can't get the permanent marker off after, try a little spray of you deodarant, it works a charm :ok:

Chinagraph Chart Pencil £1.50 (http://www.flightstore.co.uk/black-chinagraph-pencil.asp)

(Mods: Please accept my apologies if I shouldn't post this link)

Can't help on the rest sorry, still learning myself! :8

WH

BackPacker
23rd Mar 2011, 19:25
1. Charts. When planning a cross country, it is necessary to draw nice thick black lines on them to show the route. The charts aren't exactly cheap. How do pilots usually handle this? Meaning, is a special pen or lamination or something used so that the course can be erased after the trip is complete...so that the chart does not become full of confusing intersecting lines all over the place? Sorry if this is a very dull and boring question.

2. Same question on the E6-B wind side. It's necessary to draw a line and a point on the face of the wind computer...over time it will just fill up with lines.

I don't like laminated charts at all for that reason, and because they're harder to fold. I just get paper ones (the Jeppesen VFR+GPS series are great) and use a pencil with an eraser at the other end. In the US, the FAA sectionals I got were also plain paper.

If they get too creased so they tear apart, I simply buy a new one. Flying is so expensive that that expense disappears.

The E6B is the same. Pencil, eraser, simple. And no, you don't have to draw lines from the origin. A simple dot for wind direction and speed works equally well. Drawing a line may help you visualize the wind triangle so I can imagine that your instructor wants you to do that for now, but once you've got the hang of it, a dot will work just fine. And is easier to erase.

3. VFR training videos in my King School's Cessna program all show the King's flying over western terrain with *very* obvious landmarks...lakes, rivers, mountains, towns in the middle of nowhere, etc. Where I live, it's all suburban. Everywhere you look are houses, more houses, towns, and more towns. The landmarks are not NEARLY as obvious as they are in the King videos and quite honestly they really make it look a lot easier than it really is in an area like mine where finding a landmark is sometimes like finding a needle in a bucket of needles. Does anybody else fly over what you consider somewhat difficult VFR territory?

IFR: I Follow Roads, Rivers, Railway lines, Power Lines and such. Plan your route alongside these lines, ticking off various intersections. Easy. And if you do need to plan a route across a no-waypoint area, plan it so that it ends at a very conspicous line feature perpendicular to your track, and continues from a distinct landmark along this line feature (an intersection with another line feature, or an S-bend, or something else that's conspicuous.)

Once you've done a couple of x-countries you'll get a feel for what features are good landmarks from the air, and what features are not. Then look at your map again and plan your route so that you use these features. If that means flying an extra few miles, so be it. Getting lost wastes a lot more fuel.

And obviously once you progress, you'll learn how to do dead reckoning (compass and stopwatch basically), radio navigation, use GPS, and enlist the services of ATC to get you where you need to go.

4. GPS or not...I understand that I MUST learn to navigate by pilotage, both for safety reasons in the case of equipment failure and for my check-ride, and because it's just fun (when you can find your landmark!). However, it's not 1950. We HAVE the technology to never get lost. Should I always take a GPS with me, even during training, to avoid getting lost? I guess I would feel really silly getting lost because my GPS is sitting in my truck. Anyone feel the same way? Obviously the GPS can fail, but it's guaranteed to fail if left on the ground.

Take it with you. However, a GPS that has not been turned on lately loses its almanac data, and a GPS that's been moved a fair distance since it was last turned on will also take a long time to acquire a lock. This may eventually take as long as 15 minutes. By which time you'll be even more hopelessly lost than you were before. So make sure to have it turned on, or turn it on at the first hint of trouble.

5. Autopilot coupled to GPS...a question I've wondered for a while. When aircraft are flying a GPS course and there is a decent crosswind, is the flying actually inefficient compared to simply flying a heading? OK what I mean here is that the GPS does not know that there is any wind. Say you are flying coupled to GPS on a heading of 270 magnetic. The wind is out of 360 magnetic at 20 knots. The GPS is going to fly a unit of distance, let's say 200 feet, then check where it is again (I am making up these numbers). GPS says OK, we're too far south, bank right a bit. 200 feet further, OK we're on course, roll out. 200 more feet, we're south again, bank right...on and on and on.

If one was hand flying, or had the AP set on a heading, say 280 magnetic which would take care of that wind (it's probably not actually 280, just an example) the aircraft is always "clean", meaning there are not constantly aileron's dropping or rising into the relative wind. Would this not be more efficient flying?

I guess it would depend on the exact setup that you've got, but I can't imagine that the designers didn't foresee this. So I would assume that the GPS/autopilot combo is smart enough to correct for a crosswind. Better than you can by twiddling the heading bug.

In fact, I've seen high-end flight directors that take airspeed/altitude/temperature/heading/GPS data, calculate the current x-wind component for you, and display it in the corner of your PFD.

IO540
23rd Mar 2011, 20:01
Get yourself a GPS. It's the best navigation tool there is by a huge vast margin.

Re wind corrections, this is a non-event. With a decent GPS (by that I mean one with a moving map; anything else is virtually useless) you get a line displayed which is the projection of your current track over the ground.

So if you want to go to point X you just adjust your heading so that line lines up with X.

You are still flying a heading, as in practically all phases of flight. You adjust this heading according to the track displayed on the GPS.

It's really simple. There is almost nothing to do, apart from zooming the map to suit.

Autopilots are a different topic. Yes, an autopilot linked to a GPS in the NAV mode will fly a heading which is initially equivalent to the setting of the HSI course pointer, and then it will use the deviation bar to adjust the heading so the actual track lines up with the programmed GPS track. The course pointer can be adjusted manually (on a mechanical HSI like a KI-525) or it can automatically slew to the next programmed track (on an electronic HSI like a SN-3500, which I have). All the time, the autopilot is doing the wind correction. This is also straightforward but you need to understand these more complex avionics well.

I noticed the OP is in the USA and I am suprised he is "into" dead reckoning nav.

stiknruda
23rd Mar 2011, 20:21
IO540 - the OP has to learn to do it the "manual" way just in case the GPS goes tits up or the signal is jammed.

I do not disagree with your statementthe best navigation tool there is

However, in my tiny cramped cockpit with a mag compass, and a stop watch, I always do it manually and just use the GPS to back things up (show me how good or bad I am)!

I'm not anti GPS at all - I'm just anti unswerving faith in only it.

Stik

Tinstaafl
23rd Mar 2011, 20:23
1. Charts. Use a soft pencil eg 2b is my preference & an eraser. It can be used on anything you need to write on. If, for some reason, you lose all your pencils into the aircraft's secret belly pencil hold, you can still write on the chart with just about anything. The charts will last for years. Avoid laminated. They're bulky, hard to fold, force you to have a special writing tool that you generally can't use on anything else, may need to carry some form of cleaning fluid/wipes and a glossy surface needs to be held at specific angles to avoid reflections (think night flying).

2. Whiz wheel: Use the same soft pencil. Use a cross or dot or whatever you like as long as you can solve the wind triangle correctly.

3. Landmarks: It takes practice. Using Ded. reckoning based on time you can refer to where you expect to be on the chart and what you should look for on the ground. Work from the largest, most obvious feature (oceans, coastline, large lakes) to smaller, less obvious things. Don't rely on a single feature or marker. It's the combination of things that identifies a place.

4. GPS: If you feel you must, then put on in your bag. Scores of pilots learned the fundamentals of navigation without them. No reason why you can't. You may get lost. So what! There's procedures to follow to deal with it. Every mistake you make & recognise is a lesson learnt that adds to your skill.

5. Autopilot & crosswind: Presuming it's slaved to a navigation receiver and not in heading mode, it will start with track as heading & then constantly refine heading it steers to maintain the course deviation indicator or equivalent in the 'on track' position. In a short time the heading will stabilise with a suitable wind correction angle applied. Probably more efficiently than the pilot due to the constant monitoring & adjustment.

24Carrot
23rd Mar 2011, 20:33
I would basically agree with what has been said, plus:

2. For the dot on the E6B either use chinagraph pencil and eraser, or non-permanent Overhead Projector Pen plus paper tissue.

3. DR means flying a heading for a time and then spotting something on the ground which allows you to make a 'mid-course correction'. Except there may not be anything at the midpoint or you may risk busting controlled airspace before you get there. So instead of blindly correcting at the midpoint, plan to make the correction over a suitable landmark. Landmarks with a well defined width are best for estimating angular errors. And if you are good, the nose will be in the way, so start looking 3-5 minutes before you get there.

4. Definitely take a GPS, and use it as much as you are allowed to. Also use VOR/DME if allowed. Navigation is easy when you know roughly where you are, most of the time. Aim to have visual nav, VOR/DME and GPS all telling you the same thing. If you get lost, try to tell somebody over the radio, you may get radar/VDF.

5 GPS and autopilot, (and a pilot flying a VOR track for that matter), are every bit as efficient as a DR pilot flying a perfect wind-corrected heading. In every case the heading is adjusted empirically until the track is good. In fact unless the wind forecast is perfect, the DR pilot is the least efficient, because he doesn't even discover his track until he makes his correction, whereas the autopilot and VOR tracker start correcting immediately.

IO540
23rd Mar 2011, 21:06
I'm just anti unswerving faith in only it.

Nobody is suggesting using only GPS. This is the problem with all these "GPS threads". It is only a matter of time before someone converts a GPS recommendation into a GPS-only recommendation.

You use the best tool as the main tool.

And you retain other methods for backups. If you have a VOR/DME then that's your next best backup. You can also call up ATC.

Dead reckoning is not a great backup because it works only if you have been operating it all along. That increases cockpit workload substantially, which some enjoy but most don't. Whereas a GPS can just be left sitting there, running, and you glance at it every once in a while.

I have just been reading about the Apollo programme. They retained autonomous navigation - ostensibly in case the Russians jammed the radio. So the space vehicles carried a very complex computer-controlled "star sextant" which was a servo driven telescope with position encoders on it. It was actually amazingly accurate and they could have landed on the moon with it. They continued to cross-check their position with this device throughout the programme, but the primary nav was .... guess what? GPS. It was a predecessor to GPS, using the same pseudo-random correlator technique, with base station(s) on the ground and a lot of computing power back home. The same methods are still used to position satellites in the correct orbits. So, in the mid-1960s, they knew where they were around the moon using "GPS" measurements from the earth, and it was those which were ultimately used. They used the best tool as their primary tool.

Plasmech
23rd Mar 2011, 21:16
Very interesting stuff IO.

On another note, if I were to get myself a portable aviation GPS, what would a good solid model be for say sub $750?

BackPacker
23rd Mar 2011, 21:18
The charts will last for years.

Just don't use them for that long. Get new ones as soon as they're available.

I typically tuck last years chart in my passenger headset bag. That way they've got their own chart and do not have to borrow mine during the flight. Some passengers will actively try to follow the route, some don't bother at all.

(Said bag also contains my old/spare headset, some barf bags, a cheap pair of sunglasses and a spare hi-viz jacket. Typical stuff that random passengers don't bring themselves, but find they need anyway.)

stiknruda
23rd Mar 2011, 22:27
IO540

The OP is a student pilot - he doesn't know everything - hence his quest for further knowledge, I was just trying to balance the postings!

He has an FI in the US - who should be able to teach him how not to need to buy a new whizz wheel and a new chart for every trip! Your post explained how to use a GPS and a slaved auto-pilot. I can get from home to the south of France and back with a chart, compass and watch w/out hacking anyone off by bursting airspace - it just takes planning and a little SA - in a Pitts.

I used to laminate my own paper charts when I was a nav-stude if they'd be used frequently!

DR nav really isn't onerous or a pain in the ar$e - I'll admit that generally I only worry about course or brg and do all the drift and g/s corrections in my bonce. I'll fly at a power setting that should block me approx 120 or 150 or 180 knots that is close enoug to be good enough for the leg lengths that I generally fly.

Let's not lose the basics or dumb this thing down too much! Alex Henshaw did a great job in '39. We've come along way since - but let's understand how he did it, show that we can replicate that art and then adopt new tools.

Most PPL studes gain a licence then the novelty fades and they let it lapse.... KISS! I'm not disagreeing with you and am too old to get into a pointless pissing match.

Stik

pistongone
23rd Mar 2011, 22:37
First off let me say that GPS is the best tool for nav by a long way. Just a word of caution though, they can give spurious info occasionally! I have just driven from Glasgow to Kent and somewhere around Kendal i checked google maps to see if any significant traffic was ahead and my phone running google maps couldnt give my location. A few more presses of the button and it placed me in the middle of the Irish sea with the blue cursor flashing:eek:. That was no big deal in a car with an approximate idea of where i was. Not so sure a low hours pilot relying on it would so easily have ignored the data though?
Slight thread creep, does anyone know if there were any jamming trials today? As its the only time that has happened to me on the phone ( a Sony Experia) it also locks on much quicker than my sky force, like within a minute even if its very cold on data!

Genghis the Engineer
23rd Mar 2011, 22:46
Very interesting stuff IO.

On another note, if I were to get myself a portable aviation GPS, what would a good solid model be for say sub $750?

I bought a Garmin Aera 500 last year, which I'm really happy with - you might just get one for that money.

G

n5296s
24th Mar 2011, 00:44
On the autopilot/GPS question...

An older autopilot can be set to "track" mode. It follows the given heading, then uses the deviation indicator to modify the heading flown to keep itself on track. I've never found this to work especially well. With my old autopilot I just put it in heading mode and manually twiddled the heading so the track indication on the GPS was correct (i.e. taking account of crosswinds).

Newer autopilots and GPS have something called "GPSS" which essentially does automatically what I just described. You select GPSS mode and then the GPS sends fake heading information to the a/p to keep the aircraft flying in the right direction. It also has the nice feature that if your course involves turns, the a/p will follow them (including leading the turn) without you needing to do anything.

The latest GPS (Garmin 430W/530W) have even fancier GPSS features, so for example you can fly a hold or a DME arc without touching anything.

n5296s

SNS3Guppy
24th Mar 2011, 01:51
Things have gone quite well so far with the exception of almost landing on top of another aircraft that snuck in underneath us from a LONG final without making any radio calls. Neither me nor my CFI picked him up after both dutiful visual scans and a look at the traffic scope. I really hope that doesn't happen again!

It only takes once.

Look for traffic as though your life depends on it. It does.

Dutiful is great so long as it's fulfilled. There's no such thing as fulfilling one's duty in scanning for traffic. You either see the traffic, or you don't. If you don't, the one to pay the price may be you.

Traffic can come from behind; do you scan behind, below, and above, as well? You should. Do you raise your wings and lower them to look above and below? You should. Look for traffic as though it's aggressivley seeking you out. Do it with the same vigor that you should drive a motorcycle defensively. Again, it only takes once.

Beside that, I might be the other guy. The life you save might be mine.

When planning a cross country, it is necessary to draw nice thick black lines on them to show the route.

Use a highlighter.

Highlighters can be had today which are erasable, though there's really no need. I'll put stick-up notes on a chart, and at the edges of the chart where the course line goes from one side of the chart to the other, or onto another chart, I'll make a notation of which chart, and where the line goes. I use a lot of charts; I might cross seven charts or more on a typical cross country flight, and it might be seven or ten thousand miles, with up to eighteen pages of waypoints to check off as I go. It's important that I can keep things organized

Part of my preparation, especially in busy airspace, is to highlight each of the points; I put a tick of highlighter next to or over the waypoint, and in some cases actually highlight the routing. You can draw a courseline in pencil and then run a highlighter over it, if you wish. By doing this you haven't really covered up any important information on the chart, and you can read what's there through the highlighter.

If you're going to be flying at night highlighter doesn't always show up, and it won't show up in certain colors of light. Various colors of highlighter are available, and you can experiment with the highlighters that are available and different colors of light, to see what works. I just pulled several highlighters out of my bag and tried them with different lights; blue light brings up the highlighter very well, and of the different samples I had in my bag, the Sharpie Smearguard was the brightest. It works like a charm.

Same question on the E6-B wind side. It's necessary to draw a line and a point on the face of the wind computer...over time it will just fill up with lines.

I do, with a mechanical pencil. I've also found that a dot with a ballpoint pen works great; you can rub it away with your finger and won't need to worry about marking up the instrument.

I do most of my writing in the cockpit with pencils. Personally, I use mechanical pencils with a 7mm lead (smaller leads tend to constantly break if I'm writing in turbulence, and any larger produces too thick of a line for me). I also carry a separate eraser.

The landmarks are not NEARLY as obvious as they are in the King videos and quite honestly they really make it look a lot easier than it really is in an area like mine where finding a landmark is sometimes like finding a needle in a bucket of needles. Does anybody else fly over what you consider somewhat difficult VFR territory?

For what it's worth, I'll say that I really hate the King videos, and find them to be some of the most worthless training devices I've seen. Years ago, I bought their spin video to show students, and it had some excellent footage at the beginning of an incipient spin entry,shot from the top of the vertical stabilizer. Just as the airplane rolled into the top of the funnel, the video stopped,and John King jumped in front of the camera. Nobody needed to see King, but the video was very important. He ruined it; the Kings videos are all about showing them teaching, and not at all about teaching. I really hate them.

Having unburdened myself of that vitriol, you don't need a river to serve as a cross country checkpoint (and in reality, do you really have the correct river?) In urban areas, towns begin and end. The edges of the towns serve as borders, signposts. The shape of the town, especially larger cities, serves as an important clue. You may not have mountains, but I bet you have cell towers, TV towers, radio broadcasting towers, and other things like powerlines that stand out here and there. Highways are as good as rivers, perhaps even more so, and a bend in a highway or the way it joins with this exit or that road can be very useful signposts to help you guide yourself on your journey.

Remember that navigation takes multiple forms. Pilotage is one of those forms, but it works best in conjunction with as much other input as you can. Dead reckoning helps, and it's not as complicated as you might think. Simplify. If you're half-way though your journey and you've used half the fuel you anticipated, then you've got a useful benchmark. If you planned on burning half your fuel and you started with full tanks, but have used a quarter of the fuel, you're right on target. If you anticipated being fifteen minutes to the edge of this town or that, and now you're over the edge of a town, this may be useful to you.

Know where to go to "bracket" yourself. A cross country, especially a pilotage VFR cross country, isn't necessarily a strict course over the ground as though the aircraft is on rails. Have things to either side of the course that act as fence markers out boundary markers for your course. Is the ocean somewhere to your left today as you head south? If it is, then you know that you've gone too far left if you hit the coast line, but the coast line also serves to guide you to an airport if you need to get reoriented, because it's got unique features that can help you. Were there tall towers depicted somewhere to the right of the course? If you're seeing them now, perhaps you went too far right. Bracketing, working side to side a little to pick up more useful waypoints than you might get from looking straight down over the middle of your course, can be a helpful way to know when you've gone too far out of your way, or to help you find additional waypoints to use.

You don't have to fly over waypoints. Something sticking up in the air, such as a tall building, city,or tower, can be used as an "abeam" waypoint. When it's off your wingtip as you go by, near or far, you can check it off as waypoint passage and move on. Open your mind to various possibilities beyond what the Kings teach; you'll find that there are many things you may have seen all your life that you never viewed as useful navigation tools, which may be just that. See them for the first time. Learning to fly is about doing this in many different ways.

GPS or not...I understand that I MUST learn to navigate by pilotage, both for safety reasons in the case of equipment failure and for my check-ride, and because it's just fun (when you can find your landmark!). However, it's not 1950. We HAVE the technology to never get lost. Should I always take a GPS with me, even during training, to avoid getting lost? I guess I would feel really silly getting lost because my GPS is sitting in my truck. Anyone feel the same way? Obviously the GPS can fail, but it's guaranteed to fail if left on the ground.

GPS is a useful tool, no doubt about it. It puts bombs on target with deadly accuracy, enables taxi drivers to find a house in a neighborhood they don't know, and empowers users of rental cars in foreign countries to not get quite so lost as they might have been. It also dulls the senses of navigators in the cockpit. One of the single biggest complaints of senior aviators are what we sometimes call "the children of the magenta line." This goes back to a little history (and a magazine article), but it's about aviators today who depend a little too much on following GPS and automation course lines, and not enough on basic flying skills.

GPS is a great tool in the cockpit. I use it constantly. I have four independent GPS units in front of me when I'm working, as well as other advanced navigation equipment. None the less, I don't wholly rely upon them, and I intermix with other forms of navigation all the time. I cross check them, verify them, and compare them. I'm also not in the training environment much of the time when I'm using them.

For a student pilot, learning to crawl before walking, and walking before the run, then understanding the basics is more important than being able to blindly follow the GPS. In the learning stage, GPS is a crutch. You've undoubtably heard the analogy of helping a chick from it's egg. Give a young chick too much help, and it may not survive. Overcoming that first big barrier of pecking it's own way out of it's egg is essential to survival, when it first hatches into the world. Same for student pilots. Getting help from a crutch like the GPS can mortally wound your navigation skills in the future. The developmental stages of learning to fly are so crucial to your outlook, your abilities, your understand, your situational awareness of the future that what is a very useful tool much of the time can serve as a handicapping device in the training environment. Before you turn on the GPS, learn the underlying navigation that lays behind it. Being competent in all the various navigation techniques is the key to competence in situational awareness.

I once flew a modern multi-engine airplane on vectors for an approach at night. It was dark, and the cockpit panel was made up of various displays showing position, attitude, and so forth. Terrain displays gave valuable information, as did traffic collision systems, and so forth. A single relatively click, and the displays all went away, the cockpit went dark, and all the instrumentation, radios, navigation, and so on were gone. Spooky. Back to Piper Cub time; back to basics. If one wasn't very aware of one's position before the lights went out, I guarantee that one would be in a world of hurt after the lights went out. That's not the time to start figuring out where the world might be.

Not too long ago I was part of a crew that lost certain electrical features during a descent in very mountainous terrain in Afghanistan. The terrain there is very steep and the approach to the runway passes close to the terrain in places. The vectors we were being given before the problem occurred put us between the peaks of the terrain, such that a wrong turn would be very disasterous. Up until that moment we had terrain awareness diplays illuminated, as well as a courseline, and waypoints visible. I used aircraft radios tuned to the course, and was very aware of my situation. Immediately thereafter, the only information I had was what was in my head, because all the golly-gee-whiz gear no longer applied.

These things happen. They shouldn't happen often, but that doesn't really matter. Whether they happen or not, having the essentials of navigation down are critical to your survival, no matter what level of automation or guidance your aircraft may have for you.

I flew fire for many years, navigating by pilotage, dead reckoning, and by sight to big fires and small, often in the middle of nowhere. When an active fire was ongoing, locating it by the column of smoke was handy, but what of a small fire, or one in which the smoke was laying down, or under brush? Nothing to see, nothing to guide. I began doing that kind of before GPS was available, and we'd often navigate to a coordinate using latitude/longitude with nothing more than a VFR map and DR. When training, we were expected not to find the general area, but to fly to the exact coordinate, say a tree, or a point on a fence line on a mountain pasture. I was thrilled when GPS became available and the early boat-anchor units of GPS and LoRaN units could guide us right to the fence post without having to hunt or look. This is the basic skill you want to acquire; use the GPS later, but learn the ABC's of navigation now. Master the nuts and bolts before you attempt to build the car.

Autopilot coupled to GPS...a question I've wondered for a while. When aircraft are flying a GPS course and there is a decent crosswind, is the flying actually inefficient compared to simply flying a heading? OK what I mean here is that the GPS does not know that there is any wind. Say you are flying coupled to GPS on a heading of 270 magnetic. The wind is out of 360 magnetic at 20 knots. The GPS is going to fly a unit of distance, let's say 200 feet, then check where it is again (I am making up these numbers). GPS says OK, we're too far south, bank right a bit. 200 feet further, OK we're on course, roll out. 200 more feet, we're south again, bank right...on and on and on.

What you're describing is "bracketing," but so far as coupled autopilot operations, it's probably something you won't have to worry about for a while.

When the autopilot flies, it is interested only in doing what you tell it to do. If you tell it to fly a heading, then it flies the heading, and the flight drifts with the wind. If you tell it to fly a course, then it flies the course, and quickly finds the proper crab into the wind to hold that course. On the display in the airplane I'm flying, the actual aircraft heading is displayed as ancillary information; what I'm seeing is the course of the airplane. A little triangle appears to show me where the nose of the airplane is actually pointing (it's not as intuitive as you may think over say, the middle of the ocean). A useful tactic to maintain is to set the autopilot up so that it will immediately switch to a useful heading in the even that the navigation computers fail or a problem develops. If I know my heading that's in use for wind correction, then I can quickly go to flying my heading in the event of a computer failure, and I'll already be set up for wind correction while I take the next steps. I've seen a lot of pilots that don't do this. One day it may bite them.

Autopilots coupled to GPS and other long range navigation devices tend toward very efficient use of the airplane; we have nearly no bracketing, and our position is fixed within .01 RNP most of the time. This means that less than a hundredth of the time will the airplane be somewhere other than exactly where we want it to be, and even then, within very, very tight tolerances. For now, however, concentrate on keeping the airplane where you want it to be using basic hand-flying and navigation. This is the the skill set that will serve you for life. It may even save your life.

One of the modern-day examples that's used very often to show what can go wrong is the loss of American Airlines Flight 965 in Colombia. A trained crew in a Boeing 757 with advanced navigation equipment ran into a mountainside. A controller cleared the crew to fly to Cali airport using an arrival that included a particular waypoint. The crew had already passed the waypoint, but having heard it as part of the clearance, entered the arrival in their computers. The waypoint, a NDB beacon, had an identical name to other NDB's in the database. They didn't verify their course or specify the waypoint. The airplane made a big, sweeping turn back to the waypoint, and in so doing hit terrain, killing 163 people. Cali Accident Report (http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html)

Automation is dandy, except when it kills you. GPS is a great tool, but using it when you're supposed to be learning the basics is the wrong time to invest in GPS. Learn to fly, then learn to use.

If one was hand flying, or had the AP set on a heading, say 280 magnetic which would take care of that wind (it's probably not actually 280, just an example) the aircraft is always "clean", meaning there are not constantly aileron's dropping or rising into the relative wind. Would this not be more efficient flying?

The autopilot doesn't do that, and neither should you. The wing isn't constantly dropping or rising. With modern navigation and automation, the airplane finds it's necessary crab to hold the course and keeps it. It doesn't drift around. That's really what you're seeking to do as you learn to fly. Find what works to make the airplane do was you wish, and then find a way to do it smoothly and efficiently. Don't get frustrated as you go. You're supposed to make mistakes; it's the mistakes from which you learn.

Nothing, even an advanced, modern autopilot, is free of errors. Even the autopilot brackets a course or an altitude; it's constantly making small corrections to get back to where it needs to be. Ideally, the small corrections get smaller as you go; your navigation should get more accurate as you fly because you're gaining more information all the time. As you dead reckon, for example, every time you calculate your position and tie it in with something else (like a visual waypoint, when combining with pilotage), you tighten up your navigation. You're able to refine your calculations, get them more exact. That's what it's all about. It's a learning process when you first begin, and it's a learning process years later. Don't stop asking questions, don't stop experimenting, don't stop studying, because just when you think you have it mastered, you'll learn that you're just beginning. Never get too comfortable.

Stay tense.

IO540
24th Mar 2011, 07:07
Alex Henshaw did a great job in '39. We've come along way since - but let's understand how he did it, show that we can replicate that art and then adopt new tools.No disagreement, stik :)

But let me put a bit of perspective on the great navigation achievements of years ago.

Those that got lost were mostly never found (in Africa). Probably got eaten by the cannibals ;)

Other factors:

- Pilots like Henshaw were very good
- Very current
- very clever
- very clever technically (unlike 99% of today's PPLs)
- there was no CAS
- if you landed in a dodgy but populated place you probably did not get shot because they saw you as another mad Englishman

Sure DR works, if you are good. And I am sure you are very very good.

The good thing about modern tools is that they work even if one is not very good. I am not very good... a good enough pilot but like to mess around e.g. take photos, movies, watch the scenery and generally relax. Shortly I am off across the Alps, via a maze of controlled airspace so bad that when I used to go VFR I could barely decipher the Jepp VFR charts. I am going IFR... but have done it VFR a number of times, all the way to Crete. I have done DR on checkrides / revalidations and was ok enough to get to Place X but not ok enough to be sure I would not bust CAS unless I gave it a very wide berth. This is the issue today... if you have enough juice you will find the place eventually but one cannot afford to bust some airspace.

Have you seen that long thread now running on flyer.co.uk? Does not exactly make a good case for traditional nav... and nothing changes in the way people die in this game if you use the same old methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Dust_%28aircraft%29).

SNS3Guppy
24th Mar 2011, 09:15
The student who posited the original question is not planning a flight across the alps. He's a pre-solo student who is looking forward to his initial cross country experiences.

Your citation regarding UK pilots having insufficient navigation skills is more than adequate indictment against introducing crutches such as GPS too early in the training environment. Most certainly it's a highly useful navigational tool, but does not supplant basic, ground-level learning.

That's the subject for the original poster, and the point of this thread: learning basic nav. There is no need to short-cut that learning by allowing a crutch in the classroom, just yet.

Anonystude
24th Mar 2011, 09:27
I have one basic question to all those who say you should master the basics before moving on -- why? We don't expect people these days to be able to alter the timing, mixture etc on their car's engine as computers do it for you. If anyone can go out and shed a few hundred beans on a GPS that gives them instant track and groundspeed, why not use it for primary nav?

And before anyone else chimes in with tales of derring-do where they were left with a paperclip and a copy of the AA 1946 road atlas for navigation, just how often, per flying hour, have these tales occurred? And how many flying hours do you think your average PPL student flies?

Sure, keep the historical methods around to placate the ex-RAF half-wings who shine their trousers on Belgrano seats, and for the amusement of those who choose to indulge in them; but isn't it time that we start seeing the whizz-wheel and magnetic compass crowd as more akin to the Tiger Moths and Piper Cubs of this world -- all right for those who enjoy them, but no longer a mandated part of flying training?

We don't, after all, expect all new PPLs to do their primary flying training in a taildragging biplane, so why do we teach them to navigate as if they are flying such a beast?

SNS3Guppy
24th Mar 2011, 09:45
Learning to get from A to B isn't exactly rocket science, nor is it an antiquated "art."

Why should someone learn basics? You ask this question seriously?

Why bother teaching someone to make a forced landing or to handle an engine failure? After all, it doesn't happen often.

Why teach someone to check their fuel? After all, the fueler shoudl do that too for them, right?

Why navigate, when there's a magenta line to follow, right?

Why know about weather and meteorology when one won't be entering the clouds, right?

Why learn any flight by reference to instruments if one is only a VFR pilot, right?

Why learn radio procedure when we've been talking since we were babies, right?

Why preflight when the airplane gets inspected every hundred hours anyway, right?

You're really asking why someone should learn to read a chart or map? You don't understand this? This is hard for you to comprehend? You don't understand why one should be required to know how to fly by reference to a chart?

When the GPS calculates speed, time, and distance it does so by the same calculations we make on paper and using an E6B. It does so using a series of basic functions along with GPS data inputs, and these also are derived using the same calculations. You really don't understand why a pilot might need to know such bare-bones simple things as time, distance, and rate? You perhaps can't seem to get your mind wrapped around why the clock is important to understanding fuel management, as well as cross country flying?

I find it incredibly difficult to understand how you could not possibly understand these things, yourself. These are not antiquated concepts; these are the basic precepts of what we do every time we get in the aircraft to go fly. Whether one is an ATP or a private pilot (or both), one absolute must understand these concepts to the point of digestion. These are not hairballs to be coughed up on occasion, but the very bread and butter of how we get in the airplane and fly.

Why teach aerodynamics when one only pull back to go up, push forward to go down, and keep up enough speed to fly, right?

Why understand the mixture, right?

Why understand carburetor heat, right?

Why bother with the aircraft flight manual, right?

From whence does such foolishness hail?

Piltdown Man
24th Mar 2011, 09:58
1. Charts. When planning a cross country, it is necessary to draw nice thick black lines on them to show the route.

Only a readable line is required. And as charts are not that cheap, one that can be erased without ruining the chart. A soft pencil, 2B to 4B should do the job and a quality plastic eraser (don't forget a spare). As for laminated charts, I used to swear by these until I saw the light. A simple hand drawn pencil line does trick and it's a lot less faff. I also saw that the chart can be used for making notes and doing calculations.

2. Same question on the E6-B wind side. It's necessary to draw a line and a point on the face of the wind computer...over time it will just fill up with lines.

Lick your finger, give it a wipe and the pencil comes off. They last for years. But could I recommend that not only do you do the sums with the E6-B, but you also do the drift calculations in your head. I reality, they'll be as accurate but no equipment required and it will be a lot faster.

3. VFR training videos in my King School's Cessna program all show the King's flying over western terrain with *very* obvious landmarks...lakes, rivers, mountains, towns in the middle of nowhere, etc. Where I live, it's all suburban. Everywhere you look are houses, more houses, towns, and more towns. The landmarks are not NEARLY as obvious as they are in the King videos and quite honestly they really make it look a lot easier than it really is in an area like mine where finding a landmark is sometimes like finding a needle in a bucket of needles. Does anybody else fly over what you consider somewhat difficult VFR territory?

I've flown across the middle of Australia (VFR) several times. Charts from the this area look more like an even brown carpet. Virtually featureless, until you look a bit closer. What you are looking for are the exceptions. So if you are looking at a sea of houses, you might like to use road patterns, airports, rivers but don't forget, you don't have to just look down. Look several miles out to the side and ahead and look for the BIG features.

4. GPS or not...I understand that I MUST learn to navigate by pilotage, both for safety reasons in the case of equipment failure and for my check-ride, and because it's just fun (when you can find your landmark!).

Honestly, you don't need a GPS. I'd invest the money saved on a personal beer rental scheme. Or even maybe some good sunglasses (Serengeti Drivers?) or maybe a good headset. But just what will the GPS bring to the party? You are going to have to use a chart anyway to plan with the GPS so just spend a few minutes more and complete the job. And I'll guarantee that I would be able to plan a trip with reasonable ETA's, fuel planning, track planning before the GPS chappy has got the numbers punched in and checked.

5. Autopilot coupled to GPS...a question I've wondered for a while.

It depends on the GPS/Autopilot system. Some are very clever and some are dumb. But even the dumb ones follow the magenta line with such accuracy that you regularly pass over/under each others cockpit - separated by 1,000' feet. Also, in most flight phases the autopilot makes constant minute adjustments so large control inputs will not be required. As for the systems fitted to GA aircraft, I can't comment.

Enjoy the learning,

PM

BEagle
24th Mar 2011, 10:02
From whence does such foolishness hail?

I'm afraid, SNS3Guppy, that it's the so-called 'culture' of the "I want it now, I don't care how" generation.

Learn the basics so that you understand them fully.

Don't become a 'child of the magenta line' when you later use GPS! It's a wonderful device, but it doesn't know how dumb the user might be.

chrisN
24th Mar 2011, 11:42
Another thing the OP may want to try is to scan local sections of the chart into a computer, and then print out ones most frequently used. If the scan is saved as a bitmap or JPEG, it can also be modified when chart data amendments are published.

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, there are amendments every few months which include changes to published aerodrome frequencies, airspace boundaries, ATZ’s that come and go, even aerodromes that come and go, and aerodromes that move up down or sideways (as my home base has).

I can then easily print out a new version of the local charts that is up-to-date.

In my cramped glider cockpit , separate pieces of paper are much easier to manage than the very large laminated half million chart of southern England.

Chris N

Plasmech
24th Mar 2011, 13:58
For what it's worth, I'll say that I really hate the King videos, and find them to be some of the most worthless training devices I've seen. Years ago, I bought their spin video to show students, and it had some excellent footage at the beginning of an incipient spin entry,shot from the top of the vertical stabilizer. Just as the airplane rolled into the top of the funnel, the video stopped,and John King jumped in front of the camera. Nobody needed to see King, but the video was very important. He ruined it; the Kings videos are all about showing them teaching, and not at all about teaching. I really hate them.Guppy,

First of all, thank you immensely for taking all that time to reply to my question post. I read every word and took it all in. I know that questions like what pencil to use are quite mundane and not exactly very stimulating, but to a student who doesn't know the answer is worth its weight.

As far as the King videos go, I, over the course of the course so to speak, developed a negative opinion of the system as well. Here's why:

1. I did not pay $365 to see advertising for the new Cessna 162 over and over and OVER again. This is supposed to be educational, not a damn commercial.

2. I did not pay $365 to see advertising for the Garmin G1000 over and over and OVER again.

3. I did not pay $365 to see advertising for DUAT, DUATS, and FLTPLAN.com over and over and OVER again.

4. In the videos, it is not necessary to act all cheery and smile constantly. No points are given out for being pleasant. If you are talking about the ultimate result of a spin on final, you are talking about a SERIOUS event, and one's tone should be therefore serious.

5. Everything works out just perfect every time, in every video. John: "Annnnnd look at that, my planning was so perfect that we're directly over the water tower" or "and look at that, we just happen to have ended up absolutely PERFECTLY on glide-slope after that maneuver, or "Wow, I just did that 360 so absolutely *perfectly* that I just passed through my own wake turbulence."

I understand that when teaching, one doesn't want to show the student the WRONG way, but let's be realistic when we teach. Show things not working out just perfectly sometimes, and show what has to be done to correct it. Flight students are not stupid people. They are smart enough to know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Be honest when working with them, yes even on video.

6. Martha has that awkward nervous laugh and a really bad hairdo.


What training system do you happen to like Gupp?

Plasmech
24th Mar 2011, 14:02
Another thing the OP may want to try is to scan local sections of the chart into a computer, and then print out ones most frequently used.

That is an excellent idea. I should have thought of that.

I especially want to have some sort of chart protection system in place when I am training...I might plot 5 courses on a chart in one night just for practice.

chrisN
24th Mar 2011, 14:37
You can, of course, cover a printout with plastic film, or laminate it, and then use dry wipe markers for practice.

For use in the aircraft, something that does not rub off easily is better, such as overhead projector markers; or use a dry wipe marker, and cover it with transparent tape.

Chris N

Plasmech
24th Mar 2011, 15:16
I bet an iPad is a very useful tool in a cockpit. One strapped on like a knee board would be very cool!

Piltdown Man
24th Mar 2011, 19:05
Anything you don't really need is a pain in the arse to haul about, loose on the floor, bang you in the teeth in turbulence or slide behind the rudder pedals on finals. Less is more.

PM

jayeff
24th Mar 2011, 19:11
Although it's all down to personal choice, I'm not too sure why there's any issue with laminated maps. Use a permanent marker to scribble with then go over it with a dry-wipe board marker to clean it all off. Simple, quick, effective, and unlike a chinagraph pencil there's no chance of accidentally erasing it.

Laminated maps wear well, too.

SNS3Guppy
24th Mar 2011, 20:39
Another thing the OP may want to try is to scan local sections of the chart into a computer, and then print out ones most frequently used. If the scan is saved as a bitmap or JPEG, it can also be modified when chart data amendments are published.

Ask, and ye shall receive! In the US, all the VFR charts are already digitized, and are available without charge. Have a look:

Sectional Raster Aeronautical Charts (http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/VFR/chartlist_sect)

I bet an iPad is a very useful tool in a cockpit. One strapped on like a knee board would be very cool!

Various "electronic flight bags" (EFB's) are available, and recently approval has been given for the Ipad. Some work better than others, and some pilots have found that quite a few on the market don't do well in unpressurized cockpits; they don't cool as well, and don't last very long. I don't know how that applies to the Ipad.

I use an electronic flight bag, largely because they're permanently mounted in our airplanes. We use them for certain documents, and for approach charts. All our enroute charts are paper.

I've used other EFB's that utilize VFR and IFR charts, though frankly I always prefer paper where I can get it. I should point out that getting FAA approval for us to operate with the EFB's took about three years and thousands of hours of evaluation by hundreds of pilots, as well as the FAA, and that was using already-approved EFB's, and Jeppensen software, updates, and documents. Even so, I make it a practice to have printed copies of the charts I'll be using. (I've had two and three EFB's go dead within minutes of each other, and usually at the wrong time, though not with my current employer. On one occasion, I experienced loss of data because the EFB's failed while approaching Miami, which has about 70 procedures from which to choose, any one of which could be assigned. On that particular occasion, I was in instrument conditions, and couldn't proceed visually to a runway).

Do what works best for you, but always be conservative, and have a backup plan.

I might plot 5 courses on a chart in one night just for practice.

I used to do that as a student. No one ever accused me of being a rocket scientist, so I figured I could use all the help and practice I could find. I'd create tasks or problems, with various wind scenarios, and play out a trip as I did the calculations. When we drove somewhere as a kid, I'd take my E6B and spin it doing times between places, calculating speeds based on my timing, and so on. This is obviously not necessary to do to ride in a car, but still a good exercise in using the wheel. I used my E6B in high school for math, and used the wind side while doing vectors, in Physics. Again, not necessary, perhaps a tad slower, but it kept me in practice.

Martha has that awkward nervous laugh and a really bad hairdo.


Interestingly, I've met them on the road before, when they were out and about in their Citation, and they're the same in person that they are in the videos.

What training system do you happen to like Gupp?

The last ones that I looked at that I thought were good were the plain-jane Sporty's videos.

I'm not a big fan of the videos, anyway, though some people do find that enhanced graphics and a more modern approach works best for them. Personally, I like books. I like to read, I like to write notes in the margins, and highlight and underline and mark up my books. Unfortunately, I'm on the road a lot, working abroad,and I can't carry a huge printed library. I carry a laptop (from which I'm typing this). I have all FAA publications on one disc. All company publications on another. I carry some books (I get overweight bag fees when I travel because my bags are weighed down with books, and I'm fairly sure that my back problems come from hauling all that gear up and down stairs and ramps, and into the airplane each day). To me, it's worth the effort.

Each person's mileage, of course, may vary.

Plasmech
24th Mar 2011, 20:51
I wonder if the Kings are millionaires these days or if they are just "more well off than the average educated person" kinda people...

IO540
25th Mar 2011, 16:27
Martha has that awkward nervous laugh and a really bad hairdo. Yeah, very true, but

1) She can tell ya how a VOR works in 23 different ways. I bet you can't do that.

2) The two of them have made enough to buy an old Falcon jet. I bet you can't afford even a very used one of those.

3) I leave it to you to guess which of the two of them runs their household (and their relationship). And which of the two of them takes the dog out for a walk.

:) :)

I wonder if the Kings are millionaires these days or if they are just "more well off than the average educated person" kinda people... I think the Kings were in the right place at the right time, many years ago, and did a load of self publicity. Their products work well in the FAA system where there is not much ground school structure and the exams (flying and ground) are largely competence based.

They are millionaires many times over.

Plasmech
25th Mar 2011, 17:18
Yeah, very true, but

1) She can tell ya how a VOR works in 23 different ways. I bet you can't do that.

2) The two of them have made enough to buy an old Falcon jet. I bet you can't afford even a very used one of those.

3) I leave it to you to guess which of the two of them runs their household (and their relationship). And which of the two of them takes the dog out for a walk.

I'm not sure I am reading your tone here correctly but nowhere in any of my posts did I say that I can teach better than the Kings, nor do I brag about being rich enough to buy a Falcon jet.

This would be like someone complaining about Wal-Mart brand paper towels and you telling them to try to make their own paper towel factory, but do it better, then accusing them of insinuating that they have more money than the Walton family.

IO540
25th Mar 2011, 18:23
I was being funny :)

I too had to suffer them over about 15 videotapes for the IR...

Tinstaafl
25th Mar 2011, 19:10
I tried watching one of their shows once, just out of curiosity. I only managed a few minutes of it. It drove me up the bloody wall. I can't stand 'entertainment' style presentation. Give me the facts, as succinctly as possible, with focus on the supporting diagrams/images/animations and not the talking head. I don't need to look at the talking head to hear what it's saying.

o7i
26th Mar 2011, 18:02
RE: Writing all over maps. I feel its much easier to have something permanent when youre in the plane as you dont want to risk rubbing off some important information. I use permanent fine pens - black for my route, green for the 10 degree lines and red for wind. I keep the blue one in the plane for any diversions / changes i need to make in the air.

To take it off just buy a cheap bottle of nail polish remover and it comes off very easily.

SNS3Guppy
26th Mar 2011, 21:50
All the colored pens sound great until you try to view them under colored light at night in the cockpit. Then they're all gone. A pencil or a black line can still be seen, however.

Tinstaafl
26th Mar 2011, 23:55
Yeah. Red ink all but disappears under red lighting. Green isn't too crash hot either. Using pens on plastic forces you to carry extra stuff for erasing it (special wipes or solvent+cloth, or another marker to write over & wipe off) and probably different writing sticks for the other things you write on. A pencil only needs an eraser on the chart & your thumb on the whiz wheel. Many have them built in. Use a propelling pencil & you don't even need a sharpener.

Soft-ish pencil are cheap, last a fairly long time, are easily seen & erased, don't significantly wear out the map and can be used to write on just about anything you might need to scribble on. I have WACs that are 20+ years old that are still serviceable (not for man made obstacles, of course, but mountain ranges don't move much).

o7i
28th Mar 2011, 05:27
Well clearly I'm wrong, but it works for me. I have a night rating but don't really ever use it so the red light isn't an issue for me.

Interesting how you say the red writing would dissappear though. Wouldn't it just appear black under a red light? Otherwise quite a lot would dissapear off the map... like danger zones and some airspace!

Genghis the Engineer
28th Mar 2011, 07:16
Well clearly I'm wrong, but it works for me. I have a night rating but don't really ever use it so the red light isn't an issue for me.

Interesting how you say the red writing would dissappear though. Wouldn't it just appear black under a red light? Otherwise quite a lot would dissapear off the map... like danger zones and some airspace!

I used to do a lot of black and white photography, and enjoyed mucking about in the darkroom - which of-course is pure red-light.

One day (you'd never do this twice!) I wrote all my instructions to myself in red biro. Once in the darkroom, everything set up, red light on, main light off...

... and I had a completely blank piece of paper. Totally impossible to even see that there was writing on it.


Regarding the chart/torch, it probably depends upon the chart and the torch. But you don't need to go flying to find out, try them together in a darkened room at home.

G

SNS3Guppy
1st Apr 2011, 11:25
Otherwise quite a lot would dissapear off the map... like danger zones and some airspace!

It does.

As Genghis noted, you need to experiment with the tools you'll be using and the light you'll be using, so you don't need to guess what will happen. When you go flying, you should already know.

If you're going to carry colored light, carrying several colors of light is usually a good idea. Especially for reading VFR charts. Make sure you have white light in there somewhere, too.