CFI Here - Cross Country Flight Planning Question

Skymac

Skymac

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
299
Location
Kentucky
Display Name
Display name:
Justin
Looking for practical answers to what other CFI’s are doing for students around the country. If you’re a student pilot or recent private pilot, feel free to share what you learned as well.

Is anyone teaching a more digital and new way of VFR XC Flight Planning?

Are folks starting to use programs such as Foreflight to create Flight Logs instead of having a student hand write a Flight Log of visual checkpoints along the route, mileage, fuel burn, headings, and time? Followed by using this new means as primary information on their ACS Checkride and then also bringing a current paper sectional with the intended course still marked on the paper as well to supplement the printed ForeFlight Log? Again, not saying that ForeFlight or other Programs are to be used to “navigate” the aircraft, just using the power of it’s pre-flight planning abilities. This obviously will remove the need on taking a E6B (digital/mechanical) for wind calculations, etc. I know some people are rolling over in their grave but regardless - Lets face it, I want to teach safe and proficient pilots. In the last 10+ years, I can’t tell you a private pilot that I’ve known to use these those particular skills for dead reckoning.


I don’t need the old school generic “We had to do it this way, so should they” response... I think it’s a good thought and way to do it but I want some real world experience on what others have seen or done. Thinking outside of the box. Going to meet with a DPE in a few days ahead of my next students checkride to review the exact question and his thoughts.
 
I had to do it the "old" way for my private check ride in 2015. Having said that, I haven't touched a paper sectional since, nor have I laid a finger on my E6B having purchased the ASA's CX-3, and that's taken me through my instrument rating and most of my commercial. I guess it's really dependent on what the DPE wants to see as the ACS still focuses on pilotage, dead reckoning, diversions and lost procedures. I presume an examiner would prefer to see a pilot not be dependent on technology, but I'm just guessing at that.
 
I think generally arguments will break down along these lines:

Pro: real world tools for real world use

Con: most real world tools have batteries and test requirements haven’t changed


I agree the E6B should be tossed. Written exams will need modifications to validate that students understand how to calculate such data.

Most students or new PP I’ve talked with over the past couple years are not yet using a digital flight tool. Training regimen or instructor direction didn’t seem to factor in - feedback was “just not sure I need it” which I thought translates to, I just spent $10k on my ticket and not ready to invest in tools.

I’m not a CFI, however. One idea is to introduce XC planning using paper and a calculator and afterwards if the student chooses to use an EFB then have them demonstrate a XC planning using their EFB of choice.

Emergency procedures should be drilled for loss of electrical power / batteries.

I’d like to see a blended approach and moreover guidance from instructors on how to effectively and safely use digital planning tools. The FAA is trying to pull this into the curriculum with all the content on glass displays and EFIS. But always need to have a hard copy fallback.
 
Both ways should be taught and mastered by the student. Being limited in knowledge of fundamental skills such as flight planning by relying on electronic aids is no way to prepare a "qualified" pilot.

The contingency for electronic goodies failure is to pull out the map, plotter and plastic flight computer.
 
Skymac said:
Looking for practical answers to what other CFI’s are doing for students around the country. If you’re a student pilot or recent private pilot, feel free to share what you learned as well.

Is anyone teaching a more digital and new way of VFR XC Flight Planning?

Are folks starting to use programs such as Foreflight to create Flight Logs instead of having a student hand write a Flight Log of visual checkpoints along the route, mileage, fuel burn, headings, and time? Followed by using this new means as primary information on their ACS Checkride and then also bringing a current paper sectional with the intended course still marked on the paper as well to supplement the printed ForeFlight Log? Again, not saying that ForeFlight or other Programs are to be used to “navigate” the aircraft, just using the power of it’s pre-flight planning abilities. This obviously will remove the need on taking a E6B (digital/mechanical) for wind calculations, etc. I know some people are rolling over in their grave but regardless - Lets face it, I want to teach safe and proficient pilots. In the last 10+ years, I can’t tell you a private pilot that I’ve known to use these those particular skills for dead reckoning.


I don’t need the old school generic “We had to do it this way, so should they” response... I think it’s a good thought and way to do it but I want some real world experience on what others have seen or done. Thinking outside of the box. Going to meet with a DPE in a few days ahead of my next students checkride to review the exact question and his thoughts.
Click to expand...

I prefer to use paper and no moving map GPS and no flight following.

I can teach a monkey to push buttons and follow a line, teach ForeFlight for the second x/c, first one should Ben straight VISUAL, as in windows and a paper chart.

It’s all about building a strong and basic foundation.
 
IK04 said:
Both ways should be taught and mastered by the student. Being limited in knowledge of fundamental skills such as flight planning by relying on electronic aids is no way to prepare a "qualified" pilot.

The contingency for electronic goodies failure is to pull out the map, plotter and plastic flight computer.
Click to expand...
If you need to have both to use the electronic goodies, I see no need for the electronic goodies.

Have adequate backup plans, whatever they may be.
 
Skymac said:
Going to meet with a DPE in a few days ahead of my next students checkride to review the exact question and his thoughts.
Click to expand...

Good! This is the best way to get the answer that will be of the most immediate use and importance, for you. (More important than what "a bunch of internet people" think!). If he or she is going to insist on a "by-hand on-paper" flight log, that's important to know in advance. If not, then it's up to you.

The DPE in my area will accept a flight plan made/computed by an EFB or skyvector or whatever, as long as the route and waypoints are *also* sketched on a paper chart (like, with a highlighter or black pen or something), and the student can explain each leg and what the various pieces of the flight log mean (what does "WCA" stand for, what are "TH" and "MH", etc. for instance). He won't demand to see the student demonstrate E6B skills on the fly.
 
I start with paper and E6B to help teach the fundamentals. Honestly flight planning with Foreflight or other electronic means requires no involvement or brain cells. If you don't have a basic grasp of the fundamentals, you will have trouble catching any errors the Foreflight spits out (often user induced...garbage in-garbage out). The initial dual cross country will be all paper maps, old school methods. Most students are amazed at how well pilotage and dead reckoning can work.

Once my students can demonstrate they understand the fundamentals, then we start using technology and show them how it can make planning easier, but also show them some of the potential failure modes.
 
<- His opinion.

Did you learn math on a calculator or pencil and paper?

IF the student relies on some iJunk application, do they know enough to question a result? Seriously, even the almighty ForeFlight has had glitches. A solid understanding of the fundamentals may save your bacon when the bits get goofy.
 
Ravioli said:
IF the student relies on some iJunk application, do they know enough to question a result? Seriously, even the almighty ForeFlight has had glitches. A solid understanding of the fundamentals may save your bacon when the bits get goofy.
Click to expand...

I had a recent IPC pilot have a glitch with Foreflight that for some reason nearly doubled his fuel needed. Neither of us could figure out why, but we were both smart enough to realize it was incorrect. If a student never learned how to calculate fuel consumption, how would they ever catch such an issue.

Besides, Foreflight isn't going to help you on the planning questions on the written tests.
 
Skymac said:
Looking for practical answers to what other CFI’s are doing for students around the country. If you’re a student pilot or recent private pilot, feel free to share what you learned as well.

Is anyone teaching a more digital and new way of VFR XC Flight Planning?

Are folks starting to use programs such as Foreflight to create Flight Logs instead of having a student hand write a Flight Log of visual checkpoints along the route, mileage, fuel burn, headings, and time? Followed by using this new means as primary information on their ACS Checkride and then also bringing a current paper sectional with the intended course still marked on the paper as well to supplement the printed ForeFlight Log? Again, not saying that ForeFlight or other Programs are to be used to “navigate” the aircraft, just using the power of it’s pre-flight planning abilities. This obviously will remove the need on taking a E6B (digital/mechanical) for wind calculations, etc. I know some people are rolling over in their grave but regardless - Lets face it, I want to teach safe and proficient pilots. In the last 10+ years, I can’t tell you a private pilot that I’ve known to use these those particular skills for dead reckoning.


I don’t need the old school generic “We had to do it this way, so should they” response... I think it’s a good thought and way to do it but I want some real world experience on what others have seen or done. Thinking outside of the box. Going to meet with a DPE in a few days ahead of my next students checkride to review the exact question and his thoughts.
Click to expand...

I have given this a great deal of thought, not just for primary students, but especially for IFR students.

My thinking is that using EFB's relieve the pilot from the rote learning process allowing him/her to focus on the more important lessons. But this assumes the student is being trained in critical thinking. The traditional methods are not without their perils either. I've known a student who methodically planned a xc flight with pencil and paper charts and E6B, but used the exact reciprocal course for everything. The student was so caught up with the mechanics of doing the task he didn't stop to ask if the answers made any sense. That kind of stuff is likely to happen even more with electronic navigation. Once in a while I demonstrate to students how punching in a code into the 430 could lead to gross errors unless you pay close attention - you could be navigating to some destination in Africa instead of Michigan.

There is nothing magical about calculating wind correction. Working through the mathematics can arguably have some intellectual merit, but probably not much, and I doubt most pilots would even know these equations. Spinning the whiz wheel is not any different than allowing the flight planning software to do it for you. The critical skill is to look at the results and assess if they make sense.

To answer your question, I would say, use technology as needed, but not at the expense of critical thinking and judgement. It will be the responsibility of the instructor to make sure this happens.
 
Both. We’ll do a paper log and manual E6B calculations. Then we’ll enter the info into foreflight or whatever EFB the student is using and compare how accurate they are to each other. If the paper and EFB match, you know you’re doing a pretty good job
 
Some good thoughts on here, but as expected half didn’t fully read what I was say. I never said the Private Pilot Applicant doesn’t need to know how to read his POH charts and tables referring to time to climb, etc, etc. I also didn’t say ANYTHING about using the iPad inflight. Just using the printed Flight Plan out of ForeFlight to go along with a Paper Sectional. It’s a hybrid way of doing something that allows the student to use current technology while still relying on pilotage. If your argument is they need to know how to pull out the map in the plane, replot, recalculate, all while flying single pilot because “iJunk” doesn’t always work, well.... That’s invalid. If times are that tough then you need to result to some other options on getting to a safe place on the ground, figure out where you were last and fly “vfr”.
 
I recently completed my XC. I was encouraged to do everything by paper (flight nav, sectional, and used my WizWheel).

In retrospect, I am very happy that I did not use any electronics. Now I can use both effectively and efficiently.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you need to have both to use the electronic goodies, I see no need for the electronic goodies.
Click to expand...

Oh, there is indeed a need for knowledge of how to operate the electronic toys:

You need to be able to explain your epic cross country flight in small words and short sentences in their language.
 
IK04 said:
Oh, there is indeed a need for knowledge of how to operate the electronic toys:

You need to be able to explain your epic cross country flight in small words and short sentences in their language.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you’re using them, you need to explain them...but if you need paper as well, why carry both?
 
If the student has not passed the FAA written, he has to do the calculations.
 
Electronic flight plans are perfectly fine. If the foundations are strong, it will be evident in the ground portion during questioning.

I've noticed that it's actually easier for some applicants to prepare a paper log so they can easily correlate the data to the questions presented during the practical test. If the applicant does the calculations by hand, s/he'll "know" them in a way which is a little tougher to replicate with pure electronic flight logs. But I've seen success with both methods.

That being said, I always welcome a ForeFlight nav log, or what have you. I have no problem determining the aptitude of a pilot at any level with a purely electronic flight log, or a paper one.

As far as teaching goes, that's up to you -- just make sure the fundamentals are strong and the rest will fall into place.
 
there are so many fundamentals of flight wrapped up into creating a flight plan and then flying that flight manually. You are robbing your students of the true understanding of how all the pieces fit together if you don’t teach them how to do it all themselves. They will probably even pass the written and oral, without doing it, but they will never have as good an understanding as they would if they did it themselves.

Do you have to know what WCA or magnetic deviation or variation is and why they matter, to fly an airplane? Maybe not, but I bet some of your students might need to know that some day. The best way to make that knowledge sink in is to calculate it manually and fly it to see it work.

It has nothing to do with hazing or making it harder than it has to be. To me, it’s also a confidence builder just like initial solo. The student realizes they have everything they need to complete a flight and find their destination even if everything else breaks but their compass. I beg you not to rob them of this experience.
 
Ultimately, I think the answer is going to be driven more by what the DPEs are expecting than students or CFIs. I know our CFIs are using Foreflight with advanced students, but primary is still done with a wiz wheel.

Flight planning for a private student isn’t just about getting a good answer, it’s about knowing the steps that go into that answer. Same with W&B. If all you’re doing is plugging numbers into web page and getting an answer, you are short changing the students understanding of what is actually going on.
 
Ryan F. said:
Electronic flight plans are perfectly fine. If the foundations are strong, it will be evident in the ground portion during questioning.

I've noticed that it's actually easier for some applicants to prepare a paper log so they can easily correlate the data to the questions presented during the practical test. If the applicant does the calculations by hand, s/he'll "know" them in a way which is a little tougher to replicate with pure electronic flight logs. But I've seen success with both methods.

That being said, I always welcome a ForeFlight nav log, or what have you. I have no problem determining the aptitude of a pilot at any level with a purely electronic flight log, or a paper one.

As far as teaching goes, that's up to you -- just make sure the fundamentals are strong and the rest will fall into place.
Click to expand...

I was going to write a bunch of if-then-else stuff but Ryan seems to have captured it neatly.
 
A few more words... the cross-country flight planning task encapsulates many foundational skills including pilotage and dead reckoning. To me, it's a safe statement to say one literally cannot be a safe pilot without these skills.

Two years ago a fellow TEB FAASTeam Lead Representative and I experimented with the idea of teaching this skill at the private pilot level using an iPad with ForeFlight installed. While we found (and still find) the tool fantastic for everyday, real-world use, it was not as effective as a teaching tool. This was simply because it combined many steps and easily cranked out an accurate -- more or less -- nav log with almost no effort required.

When I evaluate an applicant on this task during a practical test I am seeking to determine that the applicant possesses a suitable correlative ability between all the fields on the navlog. It's a safe bet, per the ACS, that the evaluator will change up the cross-country task in real-time and expect the applicant to make the necessary adjustments. I'm able to create scenarios which require manual changes to an electronic nav log. It will not be possible to push buttons to answer the question; knowledge must be applied and the correlative level of learning must be demonstrated in order to earn a 'sat' on this task. The questions are not exotic and the challenges are commensurate with the certificate level (private, commercial, etc.) but the applicant who used the "formula" for creating nav logs will have an easy time of things. The applicant who has relied too heavily on an EFB to do the work for him/her will find that the holes in their knowledge or ability to apply the knowledge will be exposed.

What I'm saying here is that for the purpose of evaluation, it is absolutely possible for an applicant to bring a 100% electronic nav log to the practical test and do well with it. But it's also possible for things to go south in a big hurry when the evaluator starts picking out bits of data and asking how they correlate with aircraft performance, the changing weather, and so on. In my experience, applicants who spent a fair amount of time with a pencil and piece of paper evolve naturally into electronic flight planning and do well with it on the practical test.
 
My PPL DPE was amazing at fishing data from the pilots log book.


He had been in the region for a long time, and went through my log, mentally calculated the proper flight time for many of my cross country legs, using the cruise speed of my plane. The distances were in his head. If the log book showed more than the expected time, the pilot had failed to keep on the desired ground track. Or, the pilot was inflating hours to get to the minimum as fast as possible.


With modern electronic planning aids and autopilot equipped planes, his techniques would not work.


As a pilot who had 2 complete NAV/COM failures in a plane with at least 2 NAV/COMs installed, I have strong feelings on the need to have paper charts (out date are just fine for this), and the ability to find the way to a nearby suitable airport. My examiner required me to demonstrate this in the air, first, where are you? Then what is the heading to the airport? We were out of sight of the airport.

(On the potential stupidity of computers, the grammar check insists that ‘where is you’ is the correct phrase above)

On a real cross country as a student, the approximate location should be estimated from how long you have been on the present leg, or from the last ground feature identified. These skills must be taught to assure that the new pilot has the basic skills to fly whatever panel they rent in the interval between PPL and graduating to well equipped panels with true redundancy and back up batteries.


My whiz wheel was given to me by a WW 2 pilot, and served me well for my early years, but I learned to do wind corrections in my head, and the need for high precision on estimates of time to start descent from the present altitude allowed me to use a free, quality cardboard pocket size one from Mooney. I still have the Mooney one, the relique is in the College Park Aviation museum.


Even after I was flying with a panel mounted, IFR legal navigation device that accepted route inputs, and had a “closest airport/nav aid feature and data base, I wrote paper flight plans and kept them under the scribble sheet of altitudes and frequencies. The paper was created at home, and input to the NAV before takeoff.


Modern pilots should be comfortable falling back on primitive techniques when the computers fail them, and know how to get accurate results.
 
It is important for students to learn how and why something works, and why it matters. They need to know how wind affects heading and ground speed. This is where the CFI and the examiner have to be diligent. But operating a whizwheel is not a demonstration of an understanding, any more than using a software. Just because something is old and non-electronic does not mean it exhibits superior understanding. Rote learning can happen even when you use a slide rule.
 
sarangan said:
It is important for students to learn how and why something works, and why it matters. They need to know how wind affects heading and ground speed. This is where the CFI and the examiner have to be diligent. But operating a whizwheel is not a demonstration of an understanding, any more than using a software. Just because something is old and non-electronic does not mean it exhibits superior understanding. Rote learning can happen even when you use a slide rule.
Click to expand...
I would add that rote is usually as high as people get using a whiz wheel because their instructors don’t understand whiz wheels beyond rote.

Yes, there are higher levels taught for flight planning, but that’s in spite of the tools, not because of the tools.

...sez the guy who carried a whiz wheel in his shirt pocket for 30 years, and still pulls one out of his bag a couple of times a month.
 
DPE’s around here (SE MI) all require PVT applicants to do the XC planning on paper. I don’t have a problem with that. I teach my students how to use the GPS, but all XC’s are done on paper.
IFR students all use electronic tools...
 
I'm on the paper and whizwheel side for primary students. Charts, plotters, and paper nav-logs are an excellent way to show students the step-by-step measurements, calculations, and corrections used in determining wind corrections, ground speed, fuel burn, and ultimately, how long will it take to get to destination without running out of gas. I don't quite know how the wonderful automatic "tools" of Foreflight or other flight planning platforms can show these fundamentals. There may be ways to incorporate this teaching into tech usage, but I haven't figured it out yet. As to the E6B, the graphic wind-side immediately shows a student the concepts of wind triangles and heading corrections, the visuals of which are completely lacking in even the basic electronic flight calculators. The time/distance/fuel calculations, of course, could all be done with a regular calculator, but the beauty of the E6B slide rule wheel is that it is designed to simplify these (set up to divide-by-60). Once a thorough understanding of these fundamental navigation principles is attained, then, by all means, move to electronic flight planning. I don't hesitate to tell students that I don't even recall the last time I went through the entire paper process for a flight plan on say, a 2-hour flight that I've made dozens of times. Nor do I expect them, or even want them to do all that after they get their PPL (one of the reasons I don't recommend purchasing an electronic E6B). They're going to use Foreflight, etc., of course. But they should have a good background of all those fundamental building blocks to start with.
 
Skymac said:
Is anyone teaching a more digital and new way of VFR XC Flight Planning?
Click to expand...
My IR CFI was big on tech, Foreflight, all that.. but for my IR checkride ('17) he had me go old-school for the flight planning doing all the calculations with an e6b and doing it on paper

It's not bad to know these fundamentals..
 
My PP and IFR (2002 and 2004) were paper, since Jobs hadn’t invented the internet yet.
Commercial in 2006 was a DUATS x/c log printout. Examiner looked at it a bit and then asked, “what’s this “TC” mean? Why is it different than this “HDG”?
Once I explained the terms and how they impacted how/where my metal airplane would end up, we moved on.

Gotta know how/why the numbers are what they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Answer from the DPE was Electronically Calculated Logs are perfectly fine. The student just needs to be able to understand the difference on the HDG vs Course, Fuel Burns, and times and why they may be different with various environmental factors, etc.
 
Almost-PPL here.

For my first XC, we went with all paper charts, dead reckoning and pilotage. I did a manual weight n balance, nav log, etc etc... Mostly becasue I wanted to learn how to do this for the written. For the next few XCs we went all digital (GPS, VORs etc) - because thats what I will be using when I get my PPL. I fly a G1000 equipped 172 and plan to primarily fly that same aircraft or a new SR22 for my high performance endorsement and IR rating post PPL. Also, its almost 2020 and we should be using the technology we have rather than paper. Im glad I did the first XC using the old methods, just to know how much that sucks and that I wont be doing that ever again post PPL test.

Caveat / Disclaimer: Im just learning to fly for fun, not for career. Im in a Part 141 school if that makes any difference. And I already checked with my school that during the checkride, we'll be using the "technology we have in the aircraft" which means use of GPS etc will be allowed. But I fully expect him to "fail" the GPS on the checkride, for which I will be ready.

f.
 
Dave Arata said:
I had to do it the "old" way for my private check ride in 2015. Having said that, I haven't touched a paper sectional since, nor have I laid a finger on my E6B having purchased the ASA's CX-3, and that's taken me through my instrument rating and most of my commercial. I guess it's really dependent on what the DPE wants to see as the ACS still focuses on pilotage, dead reckoning, diversions and lost procedures. I presume an examiner would prefer to see a pilot not be dependent on technology, but I'm just guessing at that.
Click to expand...


This........
 
As long as the applicant can fill our a paper Nav log and explain what each number is they should be fine. The DPE’s I use and myself don’t seem to care so much about how you got the information as long as you can show them how you got it E6B, EFB, Paper Chart etc. That being said filling out a paper nav log can be quite challenging using only and EFB because I have yet to find one that provides all the information required to fill out the old Paper nav logs. They seem to assume you don’t need basic information like the the True Coarse or Winds Aloft on each leg of the flight. Some EFB’s do better but none have everything and I often end up having to work harder to get the numbers I need than if I just did it on paper and with an E6B.

The DPE’s I have talked with do say that more applicants fail when using only an EFB than those that show up with a paper chart and know how to use it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
As long as the applicant can fill our a paper Nav log and explain what each number is they should be fine. The DPE’s I use and myself don’t seem to care so much about how you got the information as long as you can show them how you got it E6B, EFB, Paper Chart etc. That being said filling out a paper nav log can be quite challenging using only and EFB because I have yet to find one that provides all the information required to fill out the old Paper nav logs. They seem to assume you don’t need basic information like the the True Coarse or Winds Aloft on each leg of the flight. Some EFB’s do better but none have everything and I often end up having to work harder to get the numbers I need than if I just did it on paper and with an E6B.

The DPE’s I have talked with do say that more applicants fail when using only an EFB than those that show up with a paper chart and know how to use it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
I’d find/build a flight log that doesn’t require information that I can’t access.
 
Skymac said:
Answer from the DPE was Electronically Calculated Logs are perfectly fine. The student just needs to be able to understand the difference on the HDG vs Course, Fuel Burns, and times and why they may be different with various environmental factors, etc.
Click to expand...
And the best way to gain the understanding of those things is to learn how to calculate them yourself.
 
Last edited:
Lachlan said:
You must be lost... Al Gore invented the Internet long before 2002. ;)
Click to expand...

That’s funny. I actually use the Al Gore / internet joke with my students when I make them do stuff old school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top