some navigation questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some navigation questions
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Swansea, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Chinagraph Chart Pencil £1.50
(Mods: Please accept my apologies if I shouldn't post this link)
Can't help on the rest sorry, still learning myself!
WH
Last edited by WelshHopper; 23rd Mar 2011 at 18:55. Reason: Added a hopefully helpful link
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 statement
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
I do not disagree with your statement
the best navigation tool there is
I'm not anti GPS at all - I'm just anti unswerving faith in only it.
Stik
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just anti unswerving faith in only it.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The charts will last for years.
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.)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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$e - I'll admit that generally I only worry about course or brg and do all the drift and g/s corrections in my bonce. I'll fly at a power setting that should block me approx 120 or 150 or 180 knots that is close enoug to be good enough for the leg lengths that I generally fly.
Let's not lose the basics or dumb this thing down too much! Alex Henshaw did a great job in '39. We've come along way since - but let's understand how he did it, show that we can replicate that art and then adopt new tools.
Most PPL studes gain a licence then the novelty fades and they let it lapse.... KISS! I'm not disagreeing with you and am too old to get into a pointless pissing match.
Stik
The OP is a student pilot - he doesn't know everything - hence his quest for further knowledge, I was just trying to balance the postings!
He has an FI in the US - who should be able to teach him how not to need to buy a new whizz wheel and a new chart for every trip! Your post explained how to use a GPS and a slaved auto-pilot. I can get from home to the south of France and back with a chart, compass and watch w/out hacking anyone off by bursting airspace - it just takes planning and a little SA - in a Pitts.
I used to laminate my own paper charts when I was a nav-stude if they'd be used frequently!
DR nav really isn't onerous or a pain in the ar$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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: london uk
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. 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!
. 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!
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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
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?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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