Track crawling
 

Keep seeing "track crawling" pop up in various threads here... That it's unjustly frowned upon, that it is a bad idea, that it's a good idea, etc etc...

Makes me wonder, what's wrong with that approach? :confused:

FWIW, I'm being taught to keep track of my position on the chart at all times, in between waypoints, and certainly not tuck it away between waypoint passages... I reckon that constitutes "track crawling"?

I would suggest that flying an accurate heading, and trusting that heading, allows spare capacity to be spent looking out. Sure, have check features along your route, but being head down in the cockpit trying to plot your route as your flight progresses is dangerous.

I've always found having check features approximately every five minutes or so works well. Also, picking the right type of checkpoint works wonders. Intersections of motorways and rivers, railways etc are ideal. Picking a village amongst villages is not so great - they all tend to look the same from the air!

MDR and VFR nav is surprisingly accurate. If you pick check features too close to each other, it is very easy to think you may be off track, and put in unnecessary drift corrections. If after a couple more check features it is still looking as though you are drifting off track, then make a correction.

The stopwatch is your friend!

All the best...

The stopwatch is your friend!

But not as good a friend as a moving map GPS.

I wonder if we could GPS out of this one, I think it would be nice to discuss visual navigation without degenerating to the usual arguments :)

I'm a great fan of GPS, don't get me wrong. The modern options have some amazing features.

However, why not take a bit of pride in your flying? Flying an accurate heading that corresponds to desired track, and when visually recognising you're off track, making an appropriate heading change to get back on track to your waypoint, IMHO, is much more rewarding.

With proper planning and airmanship, a GPS shouldn't be necessary. A back-up, by all means. Being comfortable with VFR navigation techniques allows you to actually chill out and enjoy your flying; after all, you're paying a great deal for it. You can guarantee that so long as you're flying head-down in the cockpit, somebody else is. The old "Big Sky" theory doesn't work for everybody...

We just finished international ops in class, and believe it or not, with three fully capable INS units, supported by two FMS units and four GPS units including an extra stand-alone approach approved GPS, with RNP .1 capability, we STILL plot the course using a pencil, plotting chart, a manual E6B computer, and a plotter. And yes, accurate time measurements. Imagine a room full of professional pilots flying some fairly sophisticated, well-equipped aircraft, hunched over tables with manual plotters and computers in hand, and that was us. Those same things get used on long oceanic routes, too. Especially on long routes where precise navigation is necessary, to support, verify, and check our position constantly.

We do NOT depend soley on multiple long range nav guidance; we do it just like you...dead reckoning, pilotage, and stopwatch and compass is just as important in a B747 as in a Piper Cherokee...and when I'm flying a light airplane, I do it with map, plotter, and E6B in hand.

As for the "tracks crawling," what does that mean?

Track Crawling/Feature Crawling is picking features on the ground and relating them to positions on your chart, and flying via them, rather than flying a heading for a certain length of time.

Those same things get used on long oceanic routes, too. Especially on long routes where precise navigation is necessary, to support, verify, and check our position constantly.

O.K...not including typing into the FMS which uses INS../..RNS.../..GPS .../ VOR's etc. what do you use to determine your exact position over the ocean?

Heading and time!
 

How on earth do you think Amy Johnson and others crossed the Atlantic!
Do you remember one B747 being shot down by the Russians for not cross-checking the INS

How on earth do you think Amy Johnson and others crossed the Atlantic!

Map reading?

Track crawling?

I love these forums...never a dull moment.

What I find fascinating is learning all this new stuff...

....especially this stuff about flying over oceans I wish someone had trained me in how to do it right when I started doing international ferry flights thirty three years ago.

Oh well I'm out of that business now....had to quit because that horseshoe up my ass kept setting off all those alarms at the airports after 911.

Ah...pilotage. The most basic navigational skill, and a very important one.

KAL 007...and that's one version, depending on which you believe, of course.

Exactly what I said I used in my previous post. Three individual INS units, each with their own separate GPS updating systems. A individual GPS unit, stand alone with approach capability. Two FMS units which take input from two INS units, as well as other sensor inputs when available, including two additional GPS units, for starters. However, plotting is still done on a Jeppesen plotting chart using a pencil, plotter and handheld E6B computer to verify what's being seen on navigation computers. The required navigational performance on the oceanic tracks is RNP 10, meaning ten miles either side of the track centerline. However, the actual navigational performance turned out by this equipment in conjunction with an autopilot is .1...a tenth of a mile either side of centerline, at least 95% of the time.

While ample instrumentation exists in the cockpit to provide ETA's, fuel burns, and other information relevant to the flight (such as equal time points, times to alternates or diversionary locations, etc), we still calculate it by hand to make sure what we're seeing on the instrumentation is correct. We're required to do so. Being constantly in the loop this way means there's not a lot of extra work to do in the event of a failure of a long range navigation system...and it has happened. It also provides an accurate navigation log on paper when we're done, which goes into the trip kit and gets retained at the company along with all the other paperwork associated with the flight.

It's one thing to go from A to B for hours and make an occasional glance at a FMS readout and a multi function display with a moving map. It's another to be completely in the loop and aware of your position at all times because you're constantly following along on the map, recaculating your distances and speeds, and ensuring that you're really where the airplane thinks you are.

How do you think Amy Johnson ended up off course over the Thames estuary and got shot down?

How do you think Amelia Earhart was lost over the Pacific?

And it does make a break from the monotony of Sudoku or the crossword.......

While ample instrumentation exists in the cockpit to provide ETA's, fuel burns, and other information relevant to the flight (such as equal time points, times to alternates or diversionary locations, etc), we still calculate it by hand to make sure what we're seeing on the instrumentation is correct. We're required to do so. Being constantly in the loop this way means there's not a lot of extra work to do in the event of a failure of a long range navigation system...and it has happened. It also provides an accurate navigation log on paper when we're done, which goes into the trip kit and gets retained at the company along with all the other paperwork associated with the flight.

It's one thing to go from A to B for hours and make an occasional glance at a FMS readout and a multi function display with a moving map. It's another to be completely in the loop and aware of your position at all times because you're constantly following along on the map, recaculating your distances and speeds, and ensuring that you're really where the airplane thinks you are.

I fully agree, and when delivering piston pounding airplanes trans oceanic we also use Sat phones as a backup for the HF and relays through airliners flying above us......and of course I always have my closest alternate ready for an immediate turn if needed.

I find the Sahara desert is more demanding than the oceans though especially during the Harmattan season.

Wankers
 

I've never heard so much nonsense other than from those, whose claim to fame, is someone elses hard work.

I should be safe then, I don't have any nav techniques! ;) Maybe if this crap weather ever lets up I'll be able to obtain some... :hmm:

Not getting so engrossed in map/terrain feature correlation that you neglect all other aspects of flying seems to be a good point tho'... Will keep that in mind...

Pretty hillarious how a question about track crawling results in a discussion about ocean crossing navigation methods... Love this place! :}

Homeguard,
stop pussyfooting around and speak your mind will you?:)

We do NOT depend soley on multiple long range nav guidance; we do it just like you...dead reckoning, pilotage, and stopwatch and compass is just as important in a B747 as in a Piper Cherokee...and when I'm flying a light airplane, I do it with map, plotter, and E6B in hand.


Blimey, just doing a rough diversion on your lap in a C152 while flying is tricky. I imagine using a whizzwheel and plotting accurate courses while flying a Cherokee is, um, 'interesting' :hmm::E

So endeth another proon nav thread. Well at least precluding GPS discussions got us to this point within a handful of posts as opposed to pages :}