Flight Plan Log: Do you use fixes if on an airway?

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
When you do your flight log (if you do one), do you calculate intermediate fixes? I personally haven't been doing that and have just used the entire airway for fuel burn, time, etc. But is the examiner going to expect me to break it down more on a flight log?

One leg of my flight plan for my checkride is V182 (CNS-HVQ), which is 185nm long. Should I pick two or three fixes and include them in the log or just do one entry for V182 for the entire distance with the needed calculations?
 
I planned (for my check ride) with multiple check points roughly 1/2 hour apart.

When I plan for real I still like to have something to check against around 1 hour. I just like to have time/speed/distance checks. Even though WingX keeps track for me... and nothing could ever go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...

John
 
jsstevens said:
I planned (for my check ride) with multiple check points roughly 1/2 hour apart.
Click to expand...
That answer has me wondering, since I've never heard of doing that for IFR training or an IFR checkride: Is this a VFR or IFR question?

Assuming it's IFR (since it's that part of the forum), for airways, when I plan in that way, I typically only look at change points - airway bends and VOR (when using VOR navigation) - pretty much the same as I do for VFR. It's also a reason why, in this day of GPS-direct, I like following the AIM guidance to have at least one fix in each Center's airspace.

Knowing where you are is a full-time requirement and the real reason for calculating times, IFR or VFR is to determine how fuel burn is doing. Even a 3-hour cross country leg doesn't require too many time/distance/fuel calculations with 5 hours fuel on board.
 
My GNS480 gives the distance and estimated time of arrival at all the intersections on the airway in my flight plan. Sort of makes non-radar reporting a no brainer.
 
You could justify it either way. If you put more waypoints in, you have more available times to recheck your math. I would say he won't fault you for doing more, but he may fault you for doing less. Checkride "bustable" offense? Absolutely not.
 
Bonchie said:
When you do your flight log (if you do one), do you calculate intermediate fixes? I personally haven't been doing that and have just used the entire airway for fuel burn, time, etc. But is the examiner going to expect me to break it down more on a flight log?

One leg of my flight plan for my checkride is V182 (CNS-HVQ), which is 185nm long. Should I pick two or three fixes and include them in the log or just do one entry for V182 for the entire distance with the needed calculations?
Click to expand...

For sure I,d put the VOR change over point as a fix
 
midlifeflyer said:
That answer has me wondering, since I've never heard of doing that for IFR training or an IFR checkride: Is this a VFR or IFR question?

Assuming it's IFR (since it's that part of the forum), for airways, when I plan in that way, I typically only look at change points - airway bends and VOR (when using VOR navigation) - pretty much the same as I do for VFR. It's also a reason why, in this day of GPS-direct, I like following the AIM guidance to have at least one fix in each Center's airspace.

Knowing where you are is a full-time requirement and the real reason for calculating times, IFR or VFR is to determine how fuel burn is doing. Even a 3-hour cross country leg doesn't require too many time/distance/fuel calculations with 5 hours fuel on board.
Click to expand...

My response was VFR. For IFR (training, I never got to the check ride) we used intersections marked on the IFR charts. Made creating the nav log easy since the distances are printed right on the chart.

John
 
gacoon said:
For sure I,d put the VOR change over point as a fix
Click to expand...

Why? I'd not use it unless it represents a change in direction of the airway. If you want to flight log everything, I'd not bother with any fix unless there was a decent course direction change.
 
After passing the check ride, this is pretty much academic anyway....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
After passing the check ride, this is pretty much academic anyway....
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be.

My gripe with the way it's taught at the student pilot level is that CFIs rarely explain that checkpoints 10 NM apart on a 50 NM flight in an airplane with 5 hours of fuel is a training exercise to make sure you can manually calculate time and distance and apply it to fuel burn. That real flight planning is to accomplish the same goal in a more realistic and reasonable manner.

The result is (even before GPS) pilots thinking that it's "pretty much academic" and not important, like pilotage, dead reckoning, reading features on a chart, knowing how to actually fly an airplane...
 
midlifeflyer said:
It shouldn't be.

My gripe with the way it's taught at the student pilot level is that CFIs rarely explain that checkpoints 10 NM apart on a 50 NM flight in an airplane with 5 hours of fuel is a training exercise to make sure you can manually calculate time and distance and apply it to fuel burn. That real flight planning is to accomplish the same goal in a more realistic and reasonable manner.

The result is (even before GPS) pilots thinking that it's "pretty much academic" and not important, like pilotage, dead reckoning, reading features on a chart, knowing how to actually fly an airplane...
Click to expand...
Bingo!:yes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
It shouldn't be.

My gripe with the way it's taught at the student pilot level is that CFIs rarely explain that checkpoints 10 NM apart on a 50 NM flight in an airplane with 5 hours of fuel is a training exercise to make sure you can manually calculate time and distance and apply it to fuel burn. That real flight planning is to accomplish the same goal in a more realistic and reasonable manner.

The result is (even before GPS) pilots thinking that it's "pretty much academic" and not important, like pilotage, dead reckoning, reading features on a chart, knowing how to actually fly an airplane...
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine who is a retired NTSB investigator and who maintains contact with the folks he used to work with, says that light airplane fuel-exhaustion crashes have been increasing in frequency for several years now.

I wonder how much of this is skimping on buying fuel where the prices are higher or whether it is over-reliance on GPS navigators.

He adds that catastrophic mechanical failures of piston engines is also on the increase. This is his area of expertise. He states it is not only careless overhauls, it is also new replacement parts that are faulty. He has even found faulty parts in new piston engines.

We had two fatal crashes in Southern California the past couple of weeks where there were no post-impact fires.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It shouldn't be.



My gripe with the way it's taught at the student pilot level is that CFIs rarely explain that checkpoints 10 NM apart on a 50 NM flight in an airplane with 5 hours of fuel is a training exercise to make sure you can manually calculate time and distance and apply it to fuel burn. That real flight planning is to accomplish the same goal in a more realistic and reasonable manner.



The result is (even before GPS) pilots thinking that it's "pretty much academic" and not important, like pilotage, dead reckoning, reading features on a chart, knowing how to actually fly an airplane...
Click to expand...


I'm not saying don't plan your route and fuel burn, but there's no need to do it with pencil and paper with checkpoints every 10nm...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
I'm not saying don't plan your route and fuel burn, but there's no need to do it with pencil and paper with checkpoints every 10nm...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm still quite low time on "real" cross country flying where full management is a concern. (I fly an hour and a half on full tanks-which is roughly 5 hours of fuel-I'm not too worried about it.

That said, I like to have some sort of progress check about every hour-independent of the GPS in my iPad.

John
 
I have four tanks, so fuel management takes a bit more thought that something with a "both" position.

Between a fuel totalizer, timer, and spreadsheet that I made, I am able to keep pretty good track of fuel status.

I don't use pencil and paper for it though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
I'm not saying don't plan your route and fuel burn, but there's no need to do it with pencil and paper with checkpoints every 10nm...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe not every 10, but what if you are /U?

dans2992 said:
I have four tanks, so fuel management takes a bit more thought that something with a "both" position.

Between a fuel totalizer, timer, and spreadsheet that I made, I am able to keep pretty good track of fuel status.

I don't use pencil and paper for it though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I found it easier with the 4 tanks vs 2 tanks. I know EXACTLY what my fuel burn is since my tips have 30 usable. When I switch over to the tips at TOC, it's 30/t for my burn. Then I know exactly what I've got time wise remaining.
 
So do you run the tips dry? I've heard pros and cons about that.

Typically, I look at my current burn rate and set a timer for however long it will take to burn 14.5 gallons, and switch then. (Outboards are 15 usable each)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
aterpster said:
A good friend of mine who is a retired NTSB investigator and who maintains contact with the folks he used to work with, says that light airplane fuel-exhaustion crashes have been increasing in frequency for several years now.

I wonder how much of this is skimping on buying fuel where the prices are higher or whether it is over-reliance on GPS navigators.
Click to expand...
It's a good question. And a difficult one to answer without some data (of course, we can always speculate ;))
 
dans2992 said:
So do you run the tips dry? I've heard pros and cons about that.

Typically, I look at my current burn rate and set a timer for however long it will take to burn 14.5 gallons, and switch then. (Outboards are 15 usable each)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have run them dry to the point of engiine hesitation and occasional starvation. Now what I do, when I know I'm getting close is the fuel flow gauge will start to show a slight decrease in fuel burn then a rapid increase as air is in the line and the transducer starts to spin freely. When that happens, another tank gets switched on, and the dry tank has 0 usable fuel left in it. When I fuel up, I'm still putting in the full 15 in each tank, so I know my math is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top