Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,661
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
I can honestly say that the time I spent studying A-N ranges was pretty much a waste of time.
Just Quit Training
- Thread starter Matthewc66
- Start date
Yep, but then, there are no A-N ranges left. So yeah, when you switch to gliders fuel planning becomes a waste of time.
Until we quit using fuel in planes, I consider proper fuel planning to still be rather vital knowledge.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
You are training in your own airplane? I think it's very commendable. I only bought my own headset a week before the checkride, to demonstrate that I'm not supersticious.
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
When I look into CFIT accident reports, I make it a point to find out the type of onboard GPS equipment if possible. Except for the Garmin 1000, Civil Air Patrol CFIT out of Las Vegas, it appears that the majority of flight into terrain accidents didn't benefit from large moving map screens with terrain warning databases. The Hendricks Motorsports King Air CFIT is an example of GPS without the "big picture". Just because there is GPS, it doesn't really mean much, if you're not seeing "detailed" terrain/airspace mapping............that is so easily available these days.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
The old stuff still has it's time and place and is still relevent to how people fly after they pass there checkrides (pilotage is something you use on every VFR flight you take if you think about it). I see no reason to stop teaching it, but I do think make sure students should know about all forms of navigation available to them (and how to use them) before they go on a solo X-C.
jpower
Cleared for Takeoff
What's this superstition? I didn't have my own headset when I took my ride....
Bahhh, you don't need any of that glass crap, SVT, moving maps, just toys, and expensive ones.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Bahhh, you don't need any of that glass crap, SVT, moving maps, just toys, and expensive ones.
I wouldn't know what the rudder was for if I didn't have an iPad.
You need a rudder so you can have rudder pedals so you have a place against which you can lean your iPad and see it on a sunny day.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Should the fact that the Hendricks crew was one waypoint behind alter the suggestion that the GPS wasn't sufficient to avoid terrain if they had simply been able to read the approach plate and fly the approach as published?
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
x2, aviation may not be for you, try golf, think they have apps for that
We had a guy a year or so ago, checking him out in a 172 spam can with a G1000, despite being a chart and watch kind of guy, I know my way around a G1000. We were going to be crossing a small mountain range (3-5k AGL); student keep fiddling with the G1000, I asked what he was looking for so I could help him..... he told me he was trying to find the elevation of the peaks so he would know if we were going to clear them!!!!
I asked him to look out the window and tell me if we were going to clear them (we were going to clear by 2k); he looked out the window, looked back at the G1000 and started pushing buttons.
After that I realized he would fly straight into a brick wall on a CAVU day if that little screen told him to, I terminated the flight and told him to bring her back to the airport, needless to say he was not checked out.
I would expect so. But I'll tell ya what, the G-500 gives me the time to look out the window at the clouds and hand fly, and that's without SVT. It was worth every dime is the big freaking joke. When you're running next to the ground out of OSH for Atlanta under low weather, it's nice to have the zoom out terrain to find the low passes.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
The Hendricks crew? Heck, competent "proper" IFR was all that was needed there....
rottydaddy
En-Route
True enough, most CFITs are still done the old-fashioned way.
But the common thread is bad decision-making, and lack of GPS or radar terrain warnings does not doom you to failure, if you are prepared and thinking straight. I'm thinking now of the chartered Hawker that flew into the hills east of KSDM in '91... No GPS, probably no radar altimeter, too low for ATC terrain warnings, but what got them where they ended up is classic stuff.
They didn't have a SID for Brown, and they were already running late. So they opted to depart VFR (at night), then open an IFR plan in the air. This was suggested to them by the FSS briefer.
For some reason, they didn't want to penetrate the Bravo (floor at 3000 MSL) while VFR, even though conditions were legal for it above that altitude... so they asked the briefer if they'd be OK on their planned heading "at or below 3000" .Thinking that they meant "3000 AGL" (!) the briefer told them "yes".
When they tried to open their plan after leveling off at 3300 (?), the SD TRACON controller told them it had clocked out, but that he would "put it right back in". Before that happened and they could get cleared higher, they plowed right into (unlit) Otay Mountain, which tops out at about 3500.
I say it's classic because it's one of those classic "what were they thinking?" deals... why not ask to climb into the Bravo under VFR? Why so unsure of max elevation of higher terrain just a few miles from departure, along their intended path? Wouldn't an IFR chart provide some clues? Why ask Flight Service how to handle this situation?
Gotta also wonder why this very helpful FSS briefer thought they meant 3000 AGL, too... but that's another matter.
What a mess... they didn't need GPS or ATC terrain warnings to save them, they just needed to take off into the dark in a jet with a better plan. Delay the flight some more while somebody goes to get a SID printout; take a good look at the MEAs on the chart despite what a confused briefer tells you; go ahead and ask for a VFR clearance into the Bravo, so you can climb more before dealing with the IFR clearance. Or bag the planned initial course altogether, and detour north a ways.
I'm loathe to speak ill of the dead, but I can't help but think that even if they did have terrain displayed, the way they were thinking, they may not have paid attention to that...like the crew that took off on the wrong runway when all they had to do was glance at the wet compass or DG before they touched the throttles. Some weird fixations on things that were not important, like entering a B airspace while VFR. Or am I missing some subtlety of charter jet ops under VFR? It's almost as if their desire to stay below the airspace was so strong, they could not accept that the terrain might not allow this.
This one sticks out for me because I first heard about it when I was flying out of Brown... one of the locals said "See those hills over there? If I can't see them from here (on the ground at KSDM), I don't fly that way (VFR) below 4000". Day or night, that was good advice.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Just imagine the rant we'll hear when he takes the FAA written and there's pretty black and white pictures of 1950s instruments and dumb questions about them like "which button do you push, clockwise or counter-clockwise?"
(When the real answer of course is that you'd push the wrong one, see the gyro spewing the wrong way, cuss, and push the other one. Hahaha!)
Maybe some nice WEFAX images copied on a lithograph machine and barely legible for some weather questions, too.
Time-to-climb is actually useful. The weather maps on the Writtens were outdated in the 80s.
saracelica
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,814
- Display Name
Display name:
saracelica
Exactly my point 22 posts ago!
Just imagine the rant we'll hear when he takes the FAA written and there's pretty black and white pictures of 1950s instruments and dumb questions about them like "which button do you push, clockwise or counter-clockwise?"
(When the real answer of course is that you'd push the wrong one, see the gyro spewing the wrong way, cuss, and push the other one. Hahaha!)
Maybe some nice WEFAX images copied on a lithograph machine and barely legible for some weather questions, too.
Time-to-climb is actually useful. The weather maps on the Writtens were outdated in the 80s.
I currently have 3 Furuno weather fax machines, a bunch of spare parts, and an ancient Pactor modem and shortwave radio to display the NOAA Weather Fax product on my computer. (w/ Single Side Band on a boat I also can get very limited data service)
Captain
Final Approach
x2, aviation may not be for you, try golf, think they have apps for that
We had a guy a year or so ago, checking him out in a 172 spam can with a G1000, despite being a chart and watch kind of guy, I know my way around a G1000. We were going to be crossing a small mountain range (3-5k AGL); student keep fiddling with the G1000, I asked what he was looking for so I could help him..... he told me he was trying to find the elevation of the peaks so he would know if we were going to clear them!!!!
I asked him to look out the window and tell me if we were going to clear them (we were going to clear by 2k); he looked out the window, looked back at the G1000 and started pushing buttons.
After that I realized he would fly straight into a brick wall on a CAVU day if that little screen told him to, I terminated the flight and told him to bring her back to the airport, needless to say he was not checked out.
It's a leap, I think, to say that because a guy would like to see the charted elevation of mountians he's flying over that means he'd fly into a wall.
In fact, learning the installed equipment sounds like a good use of time on a 'checkout' flight.
The CFIT and technology issue is different from the Fuel Planning and technology. The first represents proficiency required, the second represents knowledge required. I don't like those 2 issues to get confused. I'm trying to get him to understand why he needs to learn this. That is the QUESTION the kid asked.
It's kinda sad how hypocritical everyone is about "no stupid questions go ahead and ask."
The reason we do it in training is so that we learn the procedure. The reason we no longer do it after we get an Airman's Certificate is because we then know the procedure and have figured out our bock gouges to use so we can do our fuel calculations within a few moments in our heads or on a slip of paper to hand the fuel desk.
Where technology really comes in shining on preflight is measuring and totaling your distances for you, however there is a quick run gouge there as well. Find a line of longitude, place your forefinger on one line of latitude and pinky on the other; on a Sectional chart that's 30NM. A 152 has a 90kt cruise speed so each of those finger spreads is going to represent 20 minutes. A 152 burns 6gph in cruise so each of those finger spreads also represents 2 gallons of fuel. I can walk my fingers across the chart and in a few moments I know distance, time, and fuel required. I add 15+ (depending on altitude)% to that for climb and reserve and I have my fuel calculation for the trip. I now have an independently derived fuel number I know is close. If any computing device ever shows me a number significantly different, I know to look for an error somewhere.
When the DE gave me my diversion about 15 minutes after wheels up and turned in that direction, flipped my fingers on the chart a few times, and told him "I can't make that, but I can make___ " in about 5 seconds, the DE was duly impressed with my explanation of how I did that so fast. He later told me that was the point I 'passed', the rest was mine to screw up.
THAT is the reason we have to do this stuff as student pilots; so we have a thorough knowledge of all the basic elements upon which to build future thought. If we don't understand the basics, we handicap our abilities to make connections.
It's kinda sad how hypocritical everyone is about "no stupid questions go ahead and ask."
The reason we do it in training is so that we learn the procedure. The reason we no longer do it after we get an Airman's Certificate is because we then know the procedure and have figured out our bock gouges to use so we can do our fuel calculations within a few moments in our heads or on a slip of paper to hand the fuel desk.
Where technology really comes in shining on preflight is measuring and totaling your distances for you, however there is a quick run gouge there as well. Find a line of longitude, place your forefinger on one line of latitude and pinky on the other; on a Sectional chart that's 30NM. A 152 has a 90kt cruise speed so each of those finger spreads is going to represent 20 minutes. A 152 burns 6gph in cruise so each of those finger spreads also represents 2 gallons of fuel. I can walk my fingers across the chart and in a few moments I know distance, time, and fuel required. I add 15+ (depending on altitude)% to that for climb and reserve and I have my fuel calculation for the trip. I now have an independently derived fuel number I know is close. If any computing device ever shows me a number significantly different, I know to look for an error somewhere.
When the DE gave me my diversion about 15 minutes after wheels up and turned in that direction, flipped my fingers on the chart a few times, and told him "I can't make that, but I can make___ " in about 5 seconds, the DE was duly impressed with my explanation of how I did that so fast. He later told me that was the point I 'passed', the rest was mine to screw up.
THAT is the reason we have to do this stuff as student pilots; so we have a thorough knowledge of all the basic elements upon which to build future thought. If we don't understand the basics, we handicap our abilities to make connections.
Last edited:
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
It doesn't matter, they're all dead. Passengers too. Most CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) could be avoided with competent IFR. But why pass up "todays" technology that will easily display a crews correct actions, or faults, second by second.
I do get tired of all the excuses that I often see on these forum boards. "Well, if they had done this or that"...........or whatever. Point is...they're all still dead, and chances are high, that they wouldn't have been, with something as simple as my Garmin 696, or a training aircraft such as a Cessna 172 with the Garmin 1000 (Vegas CFIT excluded). Same goes for the AA 757 crash In Columbia South America (technology has changed a lot, since "the magenta line" presentation), the Ron Brown 737, C-130- Jackson Hole, the multi engine fire fighting aircraft on the other side of the peak from my home, etc.
Aztec Driver
Line Up and Wait
Like most others are saying, TOC is part of performance calculations. If you get your private certificate, you are then free to take passengers to your desired beach for a day of fun and sun. Only problem is, your 172 can't handle all 4 people with full fuel. That's ok, you can just limit fuel and carry them all, you say. Now the trip is at the limits of your fuel range. Do you have enough? How do you calculate that? Are the winds aloft the same as forecast? How can you tell? Should you land somewhere else and get fuel? Which airports are within the range of the fuel you have left? How much fuel do you really have left? Fuel gauges are inaccurate at best, most of the time.
The whizbang gizmos are very nice and tell you quite a bit, but you first have to input all of the correct data so it has a chance to give you the right answer. Like Henning said, if you learn the basics first, you learn quicker and easier ways to do it, but always back it up with the basics. If there is a discrepancy, you look for the errors with the basics, not the whizbang.
If you progress to flying larger,more complex aircraft, and fly varying loads of passengers around, the calculations can become critical. I usually try to fly with enough fuel to not worry so much about it, but there are several flights that are on the ragged edge of my planes endurance, and unforecast winds aloft caused me to divert for fuel before my planned stop. Those are the reasons for learning the basics.
It's a shame your instructor has not shown you why these things are important. Perhaps they do not know. If all you ever do is fill the tanks, fly around the patch or local area for an hour with only yourself or one other passenger, then you likely will never need this information. Unfortunately, the certificate allows you to do much more than that, so you need to know more for it.
I suggest taking a flight with another instructor and ask them the questions you have asked here. See what their opinion is. It sounds like your current instructor is lax on his knowledge and prefers to give you his own frustration instead of imparting the proper knowledge.
The whizbang gizmos are very nice and tell you quite a bit, but you first have to input all of the correct data so it has a chance to give you the right answer. Like Henning said, if you learn the basics first, you learn quicker and easier ways to do it, but always back it up with the basics. If there is a discrepancy, you look for the errors with the basics, not the whizbang.
If you progress to flying larger,more complex aircraft, and fly varying loads of passengers around, the calculations can become critical. I usually try to fly with enough fuel to not worry so much about it, but there are several flights that are on the ragged edge of my planes endurance, and unforecast winds aloft caused me to divert for fuel before my planned stop. Those are the reasons for learning the basics.
It's a shame your instructor has not shown you why these things are important. Perhaps they do not know. If all you ever do is fill the tanks, fly around the patch or local area for an hour with only yourself or one other passenger, then you likely will never need this information. Unfortunately, the certificate allows you to do much more than that, so you need to know more for it.
I suggest taking a flight with another instructor and ask them the questions you have asked here. See what their opinion is. It sounds like your current instructor is lax on his knowledge and prefers to give you his own frustration instead of imparting the proper knowledge.
Bingo, I instantly at a glance know I'm doing something wrong, what it is I'm doing wrong and what I need to do to correct it. The issue is really one of ego.
EppyGA
Touchdown! Greaser!
david0tey
Line Up and Wait
I went through similar frustrations in my training. It always seemed like it was harder to grasp than it needed to be. I completely understand what you are going through. I suggest you fight through this stage that you are in. Once you get a grasp of how to do everything related to XC flying (time/fuel/distance to climb, winds aloft, wind correction angles, etc), it can actually become fun. It is important to understand that there is no one way to do all of this. These calculations aren't always going to be spot on. The idea is that it gives you a good sense of where you are, where you are heading, and when you are going to get there. A monkey could follow a straight line on a gps, pilotage and dead reckoning is what sets a good pilot apart. I know its frustrating, but it will be incredibly rewarding once it clicks for you.
Personally I think you should learn the equipment before you climb in the plane.
Different people learn differently. For some learning in the abstract is less efficient than learning in operation,
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
Personally, I thought it was fun doing all the flight planning, playing with charts and stuff. If I wasn't out flying, at least I was doing "pilot stuff."
I can't believe you'd quit training just because you found the flight planning boring and friends said you'd never use it ......
(For the record, I use Fltplan.com and Foreflight all the time. Don't know when the last time was I drew a line on a paper chart and calculated waypoints. Probably for my commercial checkride. The key, however, is that I understand WHAT the computer is doing for me, because of all the hand-calculated flight planning I did in training).:wink2:
I can't believe you'd quit training just because you found the flight planning boring and friends said you'd never use it ......
(For the record, I use Fltplan.com and Foreflight all the time. Don't know when the last time was I drew a line on a paper chart and calculated waypoints. Probably for my commercial checkride. The key, however, is that I understand WHAT the computer is doing for me, because of all the hand-calculated flight planning I did in training).:wink2:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
How much more stuff should Air France have installed to prevent the same all-dead outcome?
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
I can certainly think of future devices than WILL be installed, to prevent even this type of accident. I see full screen SV PFD's as being standard. And with new aircraft, why not? Afterall, many new GA & biz jets certainly have them.
It's well known that computer generated terrain data-bases, combined with GPS, do a much better job of terrain warning, than earlier ground proximity warning systems. With hundreds of miles of warning, versus 15 seconds or less, it's no contest.
So yes, they're all gone. All 228 of them, because the pilots didn't realize the full extent of what was transpiring. Considering that we have cheap desktop flight simulations, that accurately display "real life databases" of water & mountain elevations as though it's a bright sunny day............is
it that far fetched, that commercial airliners will finally catch up to what's becoming standard in new GA aircraft?
Or do we just leave out, because a lot of pilots on this forum are still stuck in the last centuries technology, with their outdated equipment........because regulations make it too expensive to upgrade.
That's the way I see it..
L.Adamson
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
Actually it's quite close to the truth. I sometimes have to fight the sectional using both hands, while keeping wings level with the pedals.You need a rudder so you can have rudder pedals so you have a place against which you can lean your iPad and see it on a sunny day.
Personally, I thought it was fun doing all the flight planning, playing with charts and stuff. If I wasn't out flying, at least I was doing "pilot stuff."
I can't believe you'd quit training just because you found the flight planning boring and friends said you'd never use it ......
(For the record, I use Fltplan.com and Foreflight all the time. Don't know when the last time was I drew a line on a paper chart and calculated waypoints. Probably for my commercial checkride. The key, however, is that I understand WHAT the computer is doing for me, because of all the hand-calculated flight planning I did in training).:wink2:
That's not the guy's complaint though. His complaint is about all this negative information he's hearing. I think if that if as a student I was learning in such an environment I would suspend training too because these idiots aren't really seeming like the brightest lights to be learning under. Seek substantially better training. It's available but you have to put an effort into finding it.
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
After reading this.....again, and the Air France comment below, it seems as if we're playing kids games, or at least you are.
Yes, the Hendricks crew was a waypoint behind. A decent size moving map, within plain sight, would have "easily" altered the outcome. If you can't see that, or pretend that you can't see it, then there is little to argue with.
Whether you agree or not.............the majority of CFIT occurs, because the crew is not aware, of what's about to happen. I get tired of the myriad of excuses that are offered, as to why the crew "should have known" Facts. are, they didn't. Today's technology easily changes that. Either accept that as reality, or don't. It's pointless, and a waste of my time to argue with.
PeteJE
Filing Flight Plan
My input - I use that stuff all the time. I calculate TOC and waypoints and follow the timings closely on my paper nav log. You could gain some great clues about performance and potential problems will show up if there are discrepancies as you follow your plan. You are not a responsible or safe pilot if you fly along as if it is really just flight sim X.
Is this original post a troll?
Is this original post a troll?
L.Adamson
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 297
- Display Name
Display name:
L.Adamson
I still use the paper too. And always pick up current charts for cross country flight planning. I do planning between the paper charts & on-line flight planners. I still draw lines on paper. Fuel & fuel stops are also calculated. Then............it's all entered into my full moving map GPS, in which calculated & actual fuel usage is monitored during the complete flight. Note: much of these flights are over mostly mountains. Perhaps 400-600 miles. I never just blindly follow a magenta line....as sometimes is suggested. In fact, I'll often make deviations from the "planned" magenta line. However, I don't use VORs. I have no nav radios in the aircraft, except for a handheld. I gave up on IFR.............because it seldom has routes, to where I want to go.
The bottom line.............teach paper flight planning, pilotage, and modern navigation (GPS, iPad, etc) as something that goes hand in hand. We don't need to learn all the old ways first, and then just dispense with it all. Using them together is what I do, and believe in.
Matthewc66
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3
- Display Name
Display name:
matthewc66
In reading some of the responses it looks like people want an additional response from me as it was my thread.
After everyones input I will walk away from aviation.
The information I get is the same everywhere. People say you have to learn this way but then they tell you, you will never use it again.
Being this is a dangerous hobby and I don't feel safe after all this time in the plane I will move on.
Thanks for the information..
Matt
After everyones input I will walk away from aviation.
The information I get is the same everywhere. People say you have to learn this way but then they tell you, you will never use it again.
Being this is a dangerous hobby and I don't feel safe after all this time in the plane I will move on.
Thanks for the information..
Matt
Here's the thing brother, people have to admit to themselves that they are prone to making mistakes and go to extra effort to assure their outcome. That's a big ask only 20% will manage. Those of us who get it get it, those who don't are welcome to use whatever method they would prefer to stake their and their passengers lives on. If they don't see the value, they will not spend the money. I blame Av Shilo.
(Thanks Av) He spent a lot more than I did. Oh, anybody installing a new G-600 W/ GTN system would do well to have him as their CFI for the transition. I don't think there is a better instructor available.
Last edited:
olasek
Pattern Altitude
Can you be more specific which ones?
Pilots should no longer learn how to use VOR?
Pilots should not care about basic pilotage skills?