IFR with sectionals

[labbadabba]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

 

[old cfi]

Someone flying with paper -- how refreshing! As a former II, I would prefer you have the Enroute on top with the Sectional underneath. Always wanted my students to fly with both. Sectionals serve their purpose for showing some info not on the Enroute. Enroute serve their purpose for displaying an uncluttered depiction of airways, navs and airports making it easier to navigate the IFR world. Just MHO.

 

[labbadabba]

Someone flying with paper -- how refreshing! As a former II, I would prefer you have the Enroute on top with the Sectional underneath. Always wanted my students to fly with both. Sectionals serve their purpose for showing some info not on the Enroute. Enroute serve their purpose for displaying an uncluttered depiction of airways, navs and airports making it easier to navigate the IFR world. Just MHO.

I use paper sectionals and iPad for en route charts and plates (I do have back ups on my phone as well).

The reasons that I use sectionals are:
I like to know what's under me
It's easier to see airports
It's often easier to see VOR radials since the VOR compass is enlarged on the sectional

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Even with foreflight, I plan with the enroute and during the flight I am 95% of the time using the sectional. I like looking at what I'm actually flying over terrain and location wise. Not just numbers

 

[MAKG1]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

Sort of. There are some things you do need a Low chart for. MEAs, MRAs, MCAs, some waypoints (not all are shown on sectionals), changeover points, distances.

But I use sectionals quite a lot while flying IFR as well. They tell you where the terrain is. And, unlike Low charts, they are all the same scale.

 

[bobmrg]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

It's a good habit. Don't stop.

Bob

 

[RussR]

In a world where we seldom fly airways and are almost always in radar contact with ATC, the IFR Enroute Low charts are effectively irrelevant during flight. I do not remember the last time I used a Low chart while flying IFR (although of course I can always switch the tablet from the Sectional view if I want). Maybe occasionally for finding an unusual fix name or something.

 

[luvflyin]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

No. Just have enroute charts available in case you need them.

 

[James331]

Was it VMC or IMC?

 

[MAKG1]

In a world where we seldom fly airways and are almost always in radar contact with ATC, the IFR Enroute Low charts are effectively irrelevant during flight. I do not remember the last time I used a Low chart while flying IFR (although of course I can always switch the tablet from the Sectional view if I want). Maybe occasionally for finding an unusual fix name or something.

It also helps for setting cross radials for some intersections. The radial will be labeled on the low chart, and may or may not be on the sectional (in general, only if the intersection is on two airways).

Not everyone has a GPS, and sometimes the GPS doesn't work even if you do have it.

 

[Tantalum]

Still in training but other than the decluttered I also prefer the sectionals since it gives me a better representation of where I am, alternates available if needed, terrain, etc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm another sectional user most of the time enroute, but I switch to the enroute charts as needed.

LOL, looks like @old cfi is making the common error of thinking whether or not a "sectional" is a sectional depends on the medium on which it is displayed

 

[rocketflyer84]

So long as you have the en-route chart available to get info not on the sectional if you need it then I see no problem. Definetly lots of useful info on a sectional for the IFR pilot.

 

[bobmrg]

In a world where we seldom fly airways and are almost always in radar contact with ATC, the IFR Enroute Low charts are effectively irrelevant during flight. I do not remember the last time I used a Low chart while flying IFR (although of course I can always switch the tablet from the Sectional view if I want). Maybe occasionally for finding an unusual fix name or something.

In 1998, a Lear carrying Frank Sinatra's mother crashed into mountains east of San Diego. I can't find the accident report, but as I recall the operator of the charter company said "We're a jet company, we don't carry sectional charts" or something to that effect. As to whether they took off in darkness hoping to pick up an IFR clearance enroute, that was part of the investigation.

Bob

 

[azure]

Even with foreflight, I plan with the enroute and during the flight I am 95% of the time using the sectional. I like looking at what I'm actually flying over terrain and location wise. Not just numbers

Yep, I do the same, and for the same reason.

 

[Palmpilot]

In 1998, a Lear carrying Frank Sinatra's mother crashed into mountains east of San Diego. I can't find the accident report, but as I recall the operator of the charter company said "We're a jet company, we don't carry sectional charts" or something to that effect. As to whether they took off in darkness hoping to pick up an IFR clearance enroute, that was part of the investigation.

Bob

Here it is:

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=55869&key=0

Other info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_Sinatra#Death

http://planecrashinfo.com/famous1970s.htm

 

[Clip4]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

Yes.

 

[Hank S]

I use en-route charts to plot my route (/A fun times) and figure out my MEAs but when I fly I alsmost exclusevely use a sectional.

Is this a bad habit?

That's how I do it, too.

 

[BrianNC]

I'm another sectional user most of the time enroute, but I switch to the enroute charts as needed.

LOL, looks like @old cfi is making the common error of thinking whether or not a "sectional" is a sectional depends on the medium on which it is displayed

I may have been doing that myself. Is the OP talking about a sectional on his iPad? I thought by saying that he meant a paper one too. Now the whole thread confuses me. lol.

 

[labbadabba]

I may have been doing that myself. Is the OP talking about a sectional on his iPad? I thought by saying that he meant a paper one too. Now the whole thread confuses me. lol.

Sorry, I was not clear, I use my iPad but also have a paper sectional out as well.

But the point of the post is that while I'm flying IFR, 90% of the time I'm looking at a sectional rather than a Low En-route. Just wanted to see if that was unusual.

 

[BrianNC]

Sorry, I was not clear, I use my iPad but also have a paper sectional out as well.

But the point of the post is that while I'm flying IFR, 90% of the time I'm looking at a sectional rather than a Low En-route. Just wanted to see if that was unusual.

Are you looking at the paper sectional or the sectional on the iPad?

 

[labbadabba]

Are you looking at the paper sectional or the sectional on the iPad?

IPad mostly, but I keep the paper sectional clipped to my kneeboard. I find it helps with my overall awareness. Maybe as I become more experienced I'll feel more comfortable relying solely on my iPad with a sectional used in case I fry my tablet.

 

[EminiTrader]

Why does it matter if the sectional is ink or electronic? Its the same damn chart. Nothing is different other than its easier to hold.

 

[BrianNC]

IPad mostly, but I keep the paper sectional clipped to my kneeboard. I find it helps with my overall awareness. Maybe as I become more experienced I'll feel more comfortable relying solely on my iPad with a sectional used in case I fry my tablet.

Thanks. I wonder how many never use paper charts now. Since I last flew (getting back into it now) there were no iPads yet, and I think paper charts were still required, so just curious how many don't use paper at all any more. Or still use them.

 

[Clark1961]

Why does it matter if the sectional is ink or electronic? Its the same damn chart. Nothing is different other than its easier to hold.

Yabut it's tough to fold the electronic version.

Anyway out here in the land of direct-to there's not much reason to switch to the low enroute chart for /G aircraft. Every now and then we'll get stuck on an airway if there is a radar problem (can you say western Kansas is low priority for repairs? Sure, I knew ya could). Now if a couple charts happened to depict SIDS and STARs accurately and to scale that might be handy. Of course the majik box will do it once it's loaded...just don't want to have to load them when flight planning. I don't mind flying STARS cold but SIDS bother me a little bit if I didn't review before the flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks. I wonder how many never use paper charts now. Since I last flew (getting back into it now) there were no iPads yet, and I think paper charts were still required, so just curious how many don't use paper at all any more. Or still use them.

I have not used a paper chart in flight for 6 years.

I don't think there was ever a time when paper charts were technically "required" for plain vanilla Part 91 flights. The regulatory bases for having them are compliance with the 91.103 mandate to have all available information, and the best way of having important information at hand and avoiding airspace violations (and could not expect to be treated nicely if you violated airspace without one). You can compare that with 91.503, which requires "Pertinent aeronautical charts" for large, turbine, and fractional aircraft, and similar requirements for Part 135, 121 and 125 ops.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yabut it's tough to fold the electronic version.

I've told this one before. After a flight watching a pilot, fold, unfold, refold, and search for information on paper charts, my wife commented, "I see why you like your iPad."

 

[Bill Watson]

I have not used a paper chart in flight for 6 years.

Same here.

I fly IFR all the time but generally used the Sectionals which is a realistic reflection of the fact that most IFR is in VMC.

I say 'used' because currently I tend to use the best chart of all; Foreflight's Aeronautical chart display. It's the best of both worlds plus some.

It has some basic geographical graphics (mountain ranges, water) but no roads. VORs, airports and airways predominate but MEAs and stuff are omitted. Detail is dynamically edited based on scale. And with a touch I can instantly call up the Sectional or Low Enroute display which appears at the same scale I'm zoomed into.

I find myself using the Aeronautical display as my go to default.

Bill "Paperless for 6 years with a real good iPad mount and an iPhone, G430 and GRT EFIS for backup"

 

[azure]

I have not used a paper chart in flight for 6 years.

In my case it might be more like 7 years - I think I bought my iPad in 2010. Long ago I had a subscription to a number of paper charts through VRotate, until they went out of business without warning. I carried a Michigan MDOT VFR chart with me for many years, since as long as I had my plane registered there they would send them to me every year for free. But I've been using Foreflight pretty much since the beginning.

I do have it installed on my iPhone for backup as well - but no paper.

 

[Palmpilot]

Why does it matter if the sectional is ink or electronic? Its the same damn chart. Nothing is different other than its easier to hold.

While there are pros and cons of each format, it's amusing to me that people get so exercised over the fact that someone uses a different format than themselves.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

I turned off the location feature on a friends Ipad the other day and set the GTN to the traffic page so there was no moving map, flying from Watsonville to Concord. "Let's fly via pilotage" I said. Multiple times he asked if I was sure we weren't in the Class C or Class B. When asked where we were on the map he was more than 10 miles off more than once. That particular route has unlimited visual targets, figuring out where you are is really easy. Not only that he didn't even think to use the vors. I thought that was really scary. Especially since he has 300+ hours and Commercial and Instrument ratings. Went to one of those part 141 colleges.

 

[MAKG1]

I turned off the location feature on a friends Ipad the other day and set the GTN to the traffic page so there was no moving map, flying from Watsonville to Concord. "Let's fly via pilotage" I said. Multiple times he asked if I was sure we weren't in the Class C or Class B. When asked where we were on the map he was more than 10 miles off more than once. That particular route has unlimited visual targets, figuring out where you are is really easy. Not only that he didn't even think to use the vors. I thought that was really scary. Especially since he has 300+ hours and Commercial and Instrument ratings. Went to one of those part 141 colleges.

Wow. There are several really easy routes for that, and especially the Class C boundaries are highways on the northeast side.

I take it no flight following either? That makes Class C trivial. Staying below Class B is really easy unless you insist on skirting the Bay (that's not the shortest route anyway).

My concern about all the gadgets is just this overdependence on them. That should have been an easy flight. Especially with a commercial certificate.

I wonder if he can still do a VOR or LOC approach. Sometimes GPS doesn't work.

In his defense, I don't think anyone thinks of using DME to figure out which B ring you're under anymore. At least for now, the SFO B airspace is still defined as radials and DME on the SFO VOR. But it's not hard at all to do with landmarks. There are a TON of them.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Wow. There are several really easy routes for that, and especially the Class C boundaries are highways on the northeast side.

I take it no flight following either? That makes Class C trivial. Staying below Class B is really easy unless you insist on skirting the Bay (that's not the shortest route anyway).

My concern about all the gadgets is just this overdependence on them. That should have been an easy flight. Especially with a commercial certificate.

I wonder if he can still do a VOR or LOC approach. Sometimes GPS doesn't work.

I agree with you. He isn't IFR current... my point is that there you have someone who can be hired to fly, and he can't fly comfortably without a gps of some sort. Being able to fly with just a map is looked at as an "unsafe" thing to do. And that attitude, to me, is unsafe but very common.

I'm sure you don't have to go far to find instrument pilots who won't fly without a moving map... scary

 

[Pilawt]

In 1998, a Lear carrying Frank Sinatra's mother crashed into mountains east of San Diego. I can't find the accident report, but as I recall the operator of the charter company said "We're a jet company, we don't carry sectional charts" or something to that effect. As to whether they took off in darkness hoping to pick up an IFR clearance enroute, that was part of the investigation.

You might be thinking of the HS125 carrying Reba McEntire's band that hit a mountain east of Brown Field, San Diego, in 1991 (https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001212X16614&key=1). The departure was late, around 0145 local, and the prefiled IFR flight plan had gone stale. The crew wanted to depart VFR and stay below the San Diego TCA (now Class B) airspace, but a mountain got in the way.

In January 1977, Dolly Sinatra's Lear departed Palm Springs straight out and hit near the peak of Mt. San Gorgonio. NTSB said the crew misinterpreted the IFR departure clearance. Ironically the crash was just a short distance from where the F-4C piloted by Dean Martin Jr. impacted terrain in IMC ten years later.

 

[Hank S]

I turned off the location feature on a friends Ipad the other day and set the GTN to the traffic page so there was no moving map, flying from Watsonville to Concord. "Let's fly via pilotage" I said. Multiple times he asked if I was sure we weren't in the Class C or Class B. When asked where we were on the map he was more than 10 miles off more than once. That particular route has unlimited visual targets, figuring out where you are is really easy. Not only that he didn't even think to use the vors. I thought that was really scary. Especially since he has 300+ hours and Commercial and Instrument ratings. Went to one of those part 141 colleges.

I flew into Spruce under the ATL Bravo shelf a while back; driving to ATL is just over 120 miles, almost all interstate. I had taken the data card from my 430W home to update, and left it there. So I flew "old school," and dodged a few buildups along the GA line. When I got clear of that, figured out where I was, sure enough, there was the airport right in front of me . . . .

 

[Rykymus]

I agree with you. He isn't IFR current... my point is that there you have someone who can be hired to fly, and he can't fly comfortably without a gps of some sort. Being able to fly with just a map is looked at as an "unsafe" thing to do. And that attitude, to me, is unsafe but very common.

I'm sure you don't have to go far to find instrument pilots who won't fly without a moving map... scary

I'm not going to fly without a moving map. Not because I cannot safely do so, but because the moving map represents an extra layer of SA that I consider a big enough benefit that I choose not to fly without it. Nothing "scary" about it. No different than any other personal minimums one may set. Doesn't make me a lesser pilot than someone who is willing to fly without one.

 

[MAKG1]

I'm not going to fly without a moving map. Not because I cannot safely do so, but because the moving map represents an extra layer of SA that I consider a big enough benefit that I choose not to fly without it. Nothing "scary" about it. No different than any other personal minimums one may set. Doesn't make me a lesser pilot than someone who is willing to fly without one.

Yes, it does. It means you are unable to fly on a perfect day without something telling you what to do. That is, rather precisely, a lesser pilot. The iPad is not PIC. You are.

Honestly, if you can't navigate the local terrain in visual conditions without some gadget to tell you where you are, you have no business in the air. It's not at all difficult here. From where you live, you can reference nearly anything to Mt. Diablo or various large highways. Compass headings and timings also work, as long as you're precise. You should know by now where the local restricted airspace is by sight -- it's not hard to spot. As well as where the alert area is.

Heck, tomorrow, I'm making a CAP mission pilot candidate find and execute a latitude/longitude grid search in isolated terrain with no electronic aids, as a practice for his qualification ride. I've no doubt he will do it. The last place you want to be heads down is 1000 AGL flying slowly in mountainous terrain. Bad things can happen in a real hurry when your iThing is doing your thinking for you.

 

[labbadabba]

Heck, tomorrow, I'm making a CAP mission pilot candidate find and execute a latitude/longitude grid search in isolated terrain with no electronic aids, as a practice for his qualification ride. I've no doubt he will do it. The last place you want to be heads down is 1000 AGL flying slowly in mountainous terrain. Bad things can happen in a real hurry when your iThing is doing your thinking for you.

Isn't the MO supposed to handle that stuff though?

I also don't think that he's saying that he CAN'T fly w/o a moving map but I don't think there's much arguing that it provides additional SA.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I turned off the location feature on a friends Ipad the other day and set the GTN to the traffic page so there was no moving map, flying from Watsonville to Concord. "Let's fly via pilotage" I said. Multiple times he asked if I was sure we weren't in the Class C or Class B. When asked where we were on the map he was more than 10 miles off more than once. That particular route has unlimited visual targets, figuring out where you are is really easy. Not only that he didn't even think to use the vors. I thought that was really scary. Especially since he has 300+ hours and Commercial and Instrument ratings. Went to one of those part 141 colleges.

You don't need to be an EFB user for that. I flew with a newly-rated instrument pilot years ago who had difficulty finding is position over an intersection marked by a big interstate and large crossing road without taking VOR cross-radials.

 

[MAKG1]

Isn't the MO supposed to handle that stuff though?

Everything in the air is supposed to be covered twice over. And sometimes the MO is a trainee; one of the key tasks of an MP is to train MOs.

I also don't think that he's saying that he CAN'T fly w/o a moving map but I don't think there's much arguing that it provides additional SA.

He said he wouldn't fly without it. Even on a perfect day. If it provides additional SA under that circumstance, he's not a competent pilot.