Route Planning

onezuludelta

onezuludelta

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
245
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Display Name
Display name:
OneZuluDelta
I recently heard a newly-minted PPL was making a new-to-them XC flight, and they were asking the aviation hive-mind for tips on the flight and approach to the airport, located in mountainous terrain on the East Coast. Curious, I asked if they had planned the flight already, and what route they were going to use. I was a little surprised when they presented me with a straight magenta line between the two airports.

So, if I was planning this flight, I would've taken into account some major landmarks to follow, probably avoided the highest of the remote mountainous terrain, and made sure I wasn't TOO far from an airport at any given time. With some simple adjustments and a some extra miles, it seemed like they could've avoided their biggest worry (which was having to get over the mountains and then dive down into the airport area).

Except for the mountains, this is a fairly simple ~200nm flight. Am I going overboard? Being too anal? Do you all take all of these things into account when flight planning?

(This NOT meant to become a pro- or anti-magenta-line debate. I just want to know if I am overthinking it and worrying too much)
 
If the altitude of the magenta line is higher than the underlying terrain what's the issue?

There is no point on the east coast that's worth worrying about altitude wise. Airplane
service ceiling, oxygen usage, etc...

The Rockies - absolutely, the east coast, not even a second thought on terrain avoidance routing

If they are planning the flight at 75/85/9500, what are they going to hit east of Denver?
 
Last edited:
not at all. here in the Midwest (northern Illinois) I tend to fly a straight line between here and there but there are times when a crooked dog leg to the left or right...even several dog legs are called for. you're right to be concerned. did you pass on your concerns to the new PPL?
 
rk911 said:
you're right to be concerned. did you pass on your concerns to the new PPL?
Click to expand...

Looking back now at the discussion thread (which I suppose I should've done in more detail before posting), I see they are thinking about a bit of a circuitous route towards the end, to come in through a valley, rather than going up and over. Maybe it was just the general attitude of the original post that got me thinking "Am I crazy?"
 
This might be a symptom of me having more money ($0) to plan imaginary flights than I do ($0) to make them. And when I plan imaginary flights I get GRANULAR. Because slapping a Direct-To in Foreflight is no fun when I'm killing time playing on my iPad and daydreaming.

Another symptom: posting hand-wringing threads on PoA asking people "Am I crazy? Am I doing this right?"
 
Until there is brown under my route on my sectional charts, I don't worry about route planning. (TFR's not withstanding).
 
To this day I still plan my flights at least using skyvector or AOPA flight planner or some such, along with waypoints along the way. I like having a plan in case the 530, my tablet, and my phone fail. Hell, I even plug the route into the 530.

It's funny, but I used the direct button more as a student pilot than I've done in my cross country flying as a card carrying pilot.
 
For planning long VFR stuff, I've always found sky vector on a desktop best, just do a direct for starters, follow your route and tweak it as needed.
 
Terrain, weather, usable airports, passenger comfort, etc are all things you should be considering when you go up.
 
onezuludelta said:
Looking back now at the discussion thread (which I suppose I should've done in more detail before posting), I see they are thinking about a bit of a circuitous route towards the end, to come in through a valley, rather than going up and over. Maybe it was just the general attitude of the original post that got me thinking "Am I crazy?"
Click to expand...

I know which post you are talking about. What's funny is that is the airport my examiner selected for me to plan my route to for the checkride. It's a location that offers a few challenges - nothing major, but enough to use some critical thinking. There are multiple ways to approach the airport. For me, I was coming from a different direction than that person is, and I ultimately decided on a mostly straight route. I never used the "magenta line" during my initial training, just my sectional charts... so it certainly wasn't because of that. Just that my CFI always told me it was best to do straight routes unless there is some need to do otherwise.

I did plan it to go over easy to see landmarks - airports if available, but never made my route deviate enough that it would add much in the way of extra miles. I also chose to cut through the valley, but at a distance that still kept me 500 ft above the terrain. My thought was that coming in high is NBD, as I could always lose altitude while flying over the airport and circling around. He seemed happy with the route I chose.
 
EdFred said:
Until there is brown under my route on my sectional charts, I don't worry about route planning. (TFR's not withstanding).
Click to expand...
You don't worry about where to put it down if the fan quits?

While it's true that the Appalachians aren't high enough to have service ceiling concerns at any point, some of the peaks get VERY high winds, and there is some hostile terrain, such as very dense forest.

These are relevant to flight planning.

Mountain waves are not restricted to high altitudes. I've found a couple at 3000 MSL beneath Class B.

The highest surface winds ever recorded were at Mt. Washington, NH. Not someplace in the Rockies or even typhoons hitting Mauna Kea, or at the South Pole.
 
MAKG1 said:
You don't worry about where to put it down if the fan quits?

While it's true that the Appalachians aren't high enough to have service ceiling concerns at any point, some of the peaks get VERY high winds, and there is some hostile terrain, such as very dense forest.

These are relevant to flight planning.

Mountain waves are not restricted to high altitudes. I've found a couple at 3000 MSL beneath Class B.

The highest surface winds ever recorded were at Mt. Washington, NH. Not someplace in the Rockies or even typhoons hitting Mauna Kea, or at the South Pole.
Click to expand...

Nope. Don't worry about it. If I worried about it, I'd never be able to fly anywhere north or west of here. I've crossed lake Michigan from LDM to MTW at under 1000' AWL. If the fan goes and it's my time, it's my time. If I wanted to fret about every effin possibility I'd sit at home on my couch and fly MSFS with all the safety settings on.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Nope. Don't worry about it. If I worried about it, I'd never be able to fly anywhere north of here.
Click to expand...
Then, someday a Nor'Easter is going to ruin your whole day.

You can sometime mitigate dense forest risks by "I Follow Roads."
 
EdFred said:
If the altitude of the magenta line is higher than the underlying terrain what's the issue?

There is no point on the east coast that's worth worrying about altitude wise. Airplane
service ceiling, oxygen usage, etc...

The Rockies - absolutely, the east coast, not even a second thought on terrain avoidance routing

If they are planning the flight at 75/85/9500, what are they going to hit east of Denver?
Click to expand...
No Rocky Mountains out here, but there is plenty of dense mountainous terrain that I don't want to find myself over in a single if I can help it, especially at night. In a twin sure, but not in a single. Fly over the Blue Ridge and Smoky Mtns along the TN/NC border and you won't find many options but eating lumber.
 
MAKG1 said:
Then, someday a Nor'Easter is going to ruin your whole day.

You can sometime mitigate dense forest risks by "I Follow Roads."
Click to expand...

That's part of weather planning, not terrain route planning. If I want to follow roads, I'll drive.

Ryanb said:
No Rocky Mountains out here, but there is plenty of dense mountainous terrain that I don't want to find myself over in a single if I can help it, especially at night. In a twin sure, but not in a single. Fly over the Blue Ridge and Smoky Mtns along the TN/NC border and you won't find many options but eating lumber.
Click to expand...

No different that flying over Northern Wisconsin or the Upper Peninusla. And yes, I've crossed and flown in the Appalachians quite a few times. I've flown myself to the entire lower 48. I sort of have an idea of what's out there.
 
EdFred said:
Nope. Don't worry about it. If I worried about it, I'd never be able to fly anywhere north or west of here. I've crossed lake Michigan from LDM to MTW at under 1000' AWL. If the fan goes and it's my time, it's my time. If I wanted to fret about every effin possibility I'd sit at home on my couch and fly MSFS with all the safety settings on.
Click to expand...
Says the flatlander thumping his chest.

MAKG1 has a valid point. I am almost always flying direct across the Appalachians in the twins. In the biplane, not so much. I pick my route to cross carefully. While in theory I could take the biplane up to 8 or 9k, it just isn't very pleasant up there.
 
I like to follow roads whenever possible, though I agree that sometimes it's not an option. It gives you added terrain clearance, as often the road cuts through at the lowest elevation, and an impromptu runway in case of an engine-out, which is especially nice when that road cuts through densely wooded or very rugged terrain.
 
EdFred said:
No different that flying over Northern Wisconsin or the Upper Peninusla. And yes, I've crossed and flown in the Appalachians quite a few times. I've flown myself to the entire lower 48. I sort of have an idea of what's out there.
Click to expand...
Each to their own, but I'd rather have better options other than tree branches if all possible.
 
Last edited:
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I like to follow roads whenever possible, though I agree that sometimes it's not an option.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have a prime example of "not always an option" here in Colorado. One can follow I-70 to 11,158' elevation over the Continental Divide ... until the bloody road enters the Eisenhower-Johnson tunnels, and the mountain quickly rises ~830 feet higher. I don't know how many planes have hit the face of the Rockies near the tunnel entrances, but can recall two.
 
Seldom VFR on xctry, but when I am, straight as a rope. And I don't keep a lookout for forced landing spots either. If it stops dead, I'll point it at tbe best option visible when the silence descends.
 
I'll check to see if Ye olde Magenta is at least close to / gliding distance of a few airports / landing sites along the route. Or I'll go with the I Follow Roads approach or certain things. Tahoe? Why not? It adds like 3 minutes to the trip and is just better / safer.
 
Like others have said, an airplane's greatest strength is its ability to fly A to B, literally. Certainly you should know what's under you and plan for contingencies, but if you worry about every possible outcome, you'd stay in bed (or under it).
I do like to fly as high as possible/practical, specifically due to the possibility of losing my (single) engine, and more so over water.
The above is for east-of-Mississippi flying. Once you get out west into the real mountains, different rules may apply.
 
James331 said:
For planning long VFR stuff, I've always found sky vector on a desktop best, just do a direct for starters, follow your route and tweak it as needed.
Click to expand...

This is what I do using FF. Depending on terrain, like going KDAY to KCLT, I will tweak it so I stay on Victor Airways and plan to fly at least at the MEA's or above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top