route planning

[drotto]

Just entered the XC portion of IRF training, and over the next few day I have to plan my first IFR flight. Not that I was going to use the Foreflight route, but when I pull up available routes it gives me several options. One that is just marked Airway, and two that are marked ATC cleared. The one marked airway is the most direct route. The other two are longer, and arguably more complicated. When FF marks routes this way are the ATC routes the ones that ATC is most likely to approve and give you?

 

[AggieMike88]

While the FF version of what you want to do kinda sorta works, a better tool for that is the www.Fltplan.com one. For well travelled points, it's more up to date, and shows you the date the cleared route was generated. Also what aircraft so you can select something that your piston machine can do over a turbo-fan.

Once I see what is common between my departure and destination on Fltplan.com, I'll recreate in FF using the Procedures function so I can see how the structure flows together.

 

[AggieMike88]

And a point for IFR XC planning I got schooled on by the DPE. Keep in mind the lost comm procedures when selecting waypoints. In other words, just don't go from an enroute point to the destination airport. Have as one of your "next to last filed waypoints" the IAP that gets you onto the approach. So if you did not re-establish comms before entering the approach phase, ATC knows what approach you planned (based on the initial waypoint/fix) and clear the way for ya.

 

[MAKG1]

The "ATC Cleared" routes have been cleared by ATC recently. That's all it means. It's not even close to a guarantee that you'll get cleared as filed. That will depend on local traffic at the time you pass through (which may be different from what you planned).

But It does make it fairly likely any more direct route will get changed.

Also keep in mind that if you pass through busy airspace, you aren't going to fly your clearance unless you lose comms. You'll get vectored, and it will be different. Example: A recent IFR cross country from KSAC to KPAO had a filed route SAC V334 SJC LICKE (see Mike's suggestion about the IAF for that last one). The clearance was SAC MOVDD SJC (essentially T259, but it wasn't named). We actually flew vectors to 10 miles south of SAC VOR and then got told to fly direct CEDES. At that point, we saw the pass was clear below 4000 and canceled IFR, cause the reroute was very long.

 

[drotto]

I was likely going to do a route from KBLM to KOXB, which is a common flight to make in my area. I am not surprised there are recently approved clearances on it. I was thinking KBLM DIXIE V1 ATR PFAIR (if they let me use an IAF) KOXB. ATR is a little distance from KOXB, but does appear on the approach not as an IAF but as a VOR reference point for most of the airport procedures. Obviously, I am just playing with this, because I can't guess next weeks weather.

I just had ground school today and it was stressed to me to keep the lost coms procedure in mind and what to do, but thanks for the heads up.

 

[tsts4]

And a point for IFR XC planning I got schooled on by the DPE. Keep in mind the lost comm procedures when selecting waypoints. In other words, just don't go from an enroute point to the destination airport. Have as one of your "next to last filed waypoints" the IAP that gets you onto the approach. So if you did not re-establish comms before entering the approach phase, ATC knows what approach you planned (based on the initial waypoint/fix) and clear the way for ya.

Contrarian view. I don't bother trying to figure out the approach and an associated fix at my destination to file in my flight plan because the conditions can change significantly from when I file to when I arrive. Also ATC really doesn't know what you are going to do so they are going to clear everyone out of your way so what approach you actually fly really doesn't matter under lost comms.

 

[AggieMike88]

Contrarian view. I don't bother trying to figure out the approach and an associated fix at my destination to file in my flight plan because the conditions can change significantly from when I file to when I arrive. Also ATC really doesn't know what you are going to do so they are going to clear everyone out of your way so what approach you actually fly really doesn't matter under lost comms.

I figured I was gonna create a Baby Ruth in the Pool event with my comment. (Caddyshack reference)

 

[EdFred]

Using FF or FltPlan is NOT planning a flight. That's punching some data in and letting it barf it back at you.

 

[mscard88]

I figured I was gonna create a Baby Ruth in the Pool event with my comment. (Caddyshack reference)

"Look! No big deal" ......Love that scene.

Great movie, classic.

 

[tsts4]

I figured I was gonna create a Baby Ruth in the Pool event with my comment. (Caddyshack reference)

Nah. There's just differing philosophies on how to skin the cat-- either way can work. Your way just isn't the way I prefer to do it.

 

[RalphInCA]

Using FF or FltPlan is NOT planning a flight. That's punching some data in and letting it barf it back at you.

Which is... Wait for it... Flight planning in 2016!

 

[drotto]

Which is... Wait for it... Flight planning in 2016!

I know how to do it the old way also. Pick routes and way-points. Check distances. Calculate wind corrections. Calculate fuel burn, and gallons used. ETC ETC ETC. Not an issue, an IFR map is exactly the same regardless if it is on paper or a screen.

 

[dtuuri]

Contrarian view. I don't bother trying to figure out the approach and an associated fix at my destination to file in my flight plan because the conditions can change significantly from when I file to when I arrive. Also ATC really doesn't know what you are going to do so they are going to clear everyone out of your way so what approach you actually fly really doesn't matter under lost comms.

Those are straw-man arguments. The reason for selecting a route with lost comms in mind is to know an optimized routing your plane has the performance and equipment to fly--MEAs, climb gradients, navigational equipment, etc. Changing conditions at the far end doesn't figure into the equation because, as you say, ATC protects all the IAPs for your arrival. Your planning diligence makes sure you have a route over and around the terrain, within service range of any required ground-based nav facilities, leading to an approach you're equipped to shoot with a missed approach procedure you have the climb capability to execute. It's the foundation for situational awareness; should ATC revise your route, you will have a better understanding of whether the clearance is acceptable, say, a more direct routing over a large body of water for example. Filing according to the AIM for random direct routes between departure and arrival gates helps minimize delays and revised clearances. Filing the route segment from the arrival fix to an IAF is for the pilot's edification more so than ATC's, imo.

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

Which is... Wait for it... Flight planning in 2016!

So, lets not teach math in schools because we have calculators. Let's not teach spelling because we have autocorrect. Let's not teach reading because we have text-to-speech. And let's not teach flight planning because we have foreflight. And we wonder why this country is getting more dumberer.

Follow the magenta line, whiz kids, follow the magenta line.

 

[James331]

Which is... Wait for it... Flight planning in 2016!

So are calculators, do you still supporting teaching kids how too add and subtract without needing a machine to do it?


To the OP, bust out some paper and sit down with your CFI and do it the hard way, that's what you're paying for, using FF or fltplan is just going to short change yourself at this point in the game.

Later on, FltPlan is the go to for all things flight planning, fore flight is a great EFB, but when it comes to routes. Fuel burns, ETEs and whatnot, fltplan is by far the best.

Again, till you earn your ticket leave the electronic stuff alone, maybe have your CFI show you at the tail end of your training, but you really need to be doing everything long hand right now, if that makes sense.

 

[James331]

So, lets not teach math in schools because we have calculators. Let's not teach spelling because we have autocorrect. Let's not teach reading because we have text-to-speech. And let's not teach flight planning because we have foreflight. And we wonder why this country is getting more dumberer.

Follow the magenta line, whiz kids, follow the magenta line.

Beat me to it.

 

[jsstevens]

I've got an article from an electrical engineering trade magazine the early 80's that I've kept, copied and handed out several times. It makes the point that a tool, no matter how good, is never a substitute for understanding the problem. I'm all for using fancy flight planners (I use WingX Pro) but I'm always looking at the results and asking myself "Does this make sense?" I can do that because I learned how to flight plan the "old way" so I understand what I'm doing. I have caught, not really errors, but things which I'd rather do differently. So I change things a bit. This is all VFR but I'm now actively engaged in IR training so I expect it to get worse...

John

 

[drotto]

So are calculators, do you still supporting teaching kids how too add and subtract without needing a machine to do it?


To the OP, bust out some paper and sit down with your CFI and do it the hard way, that's what you're paying for, using FF or fltplan is just going to short change yourself at this point in the game.

Later on, FltPlan is the go to for all things flight planning, fore flight is a great EFB, but when it comes to routes. Fuel burns, ETEs and whatnot, fltplan is by far the best.

Again, till you earn your ticket leave the electronic stuff alone, maybe have your CFI show you at the tail end of your training, but you really need to be doing everything long hand right now, if that makes sense.

I can already do everything by hand. Just really using the FF because that is where my maps are. I planned the route I wanted and hit the routes button to see how mine compared. Then became curious what the different route sections meant. This may not be popular with some people, but having my maps and plates all in FF as opposed to in books, supplements, and on multiple maps is just far easier. Does not mean I am using a program to do all the work.

Did all my primary training on steam, one VOR, with paper maps, the school I used does not even have a glass panel plane.

 

[Sundancer]

So, lets not teach math in schools because we have calculators. Let's not teach spelling because we have autocorrect. Let's not teach reading because we have text-to-speech. And let's not teach flight planning because we have foreflight. And we wonder why this country is getting more dumberer.

Follow the magenta line, whiz kids, follow the magenta line.

You do need to understand math to use a calculator, right? You just don't need to do the arithmetic. And I wouldn't waste too much instruction time on spelling, either - that would be better spent on reading, where spelling knowledge would accrue as a side benefit. . .

I think you're confusing tools withe the knowledge required to use them. If a pilot lost use of FF, pretty sure he'd still be able to plan a flight; perhaps not as quickly, but it isn't all that complex a task. . .

 

[EdFred]

You do need to understand math to use a calculator, right? You just don't need to do the arithmetic. And I wouldn't waste too much instruction time on spelling, either - that would be better spent on reading, where spelling knowledge would accrue as a side benefit. . .

I think you're confusing tools withe the knowledge required to use them. If a pilot lost use of FF, pretty sure he'd still be able to plan a flight; perhaps not as quickly, but it isn't all that complex a task. . .

You think wrong. I have met the people that can use a calculator, but can not multiply two 2 digit numbers together in their head or on paper. I've run into many more on the spelling/writing part of it as well. I would take the wager that the pilots that ONLY use foreflight would have trouble. I should take an E6-B and paper to the next fly-in and watch the hilarity ensue.

 

[denverpilot]

I should take an E6-B and paper to the next fly-in and watch the hilarity ensue.

Per your standard, the E6B is cheating... so is pencil and paper for doing the math long-hand. They must memorize it all.

 

[drotto]

Per your standard, the E6B is cheating... so is pencil and paper for doing the math long-hand. They must memorize it all.

Even the FAA approves of electronic E6B's now.

 

[bobmrg]

Using FF or FltPlan is NOT planning a flight. That's punching some data in and letting it barf it back at you.

True, but...I am a geezer, old-timer, choose your own pejorative, and I am very much in favor of FltPlan. Doing flight planning manually may have some psychic value but at the end of the day technology comes up with the necessary information much more quickly and with less chance of error. Do you have a washing machine, automobile....any of those things that do things the human body is capable of but with more expenditure of energy?

Bob Gardner

 

[Everskyward]

Even the FAA approves of electronic E6B's now.

Plus an E6B is a computer of sorts. It's just not electronic.

 

[ircphoenix]

Let's not teach spelling because we have autocorrect.

B*******.... I've seen what autocorrect does. LoL

 

[timwinters]

Plus an E6B is a computer of sorts. It's just not electronic.

True but...

A good old fashioned E6B, by design, gives your brain a visual understanding behind the method to the madness. This is especially true of wind correction angles.

Straight up calculators don't do this. They just spit out numbers.

I still use my "whiz wheel" E6B on every flight.

And I'm not an old geezer like Bob!

 

[Everskyward]

I agree that the wind side of the E6B might help in visualizing the wind correction but I never thought of this as such a difficult concept to grasp to begin with. I don't see the circular slide rule side of the E6B as being any more than a manual calculator, though.

 

[Sundancer]

You think wrong. I have met the people that can use a calculator, but can not multiply two 2 digit numbers together in their head or on paper. I've run into many more on the spelling/writing part of it as well. I would take the wager that the pilots that ONLY use foreflight would have trouble. I should take an E6-B and paper to the next fly-in and watch the hilarity ensue.

You missed my point, I think - a calculator (electronic, E6B, or an abacus), does the grunt arithmetic - the operator defines the problem to be solved.

I used to do weight and balance calculations manually, for a large turbine aircraft; it was simple arithmetic, and by doing it all the time, I was fast and accurate. If I had to do it today, manually, I'd be slow and accurate. But the principles of weight, arm, and moment are still in my noggin. And I would use a calculator, vice a pen-and-paper.

An E6B isn't more, or less, a "crutch" than FF, or a hand-held device, or whatever. Aren't the basic problems in flight planning real simple? Where even a casual review will tell you if your answer is reasonable? Heck, even for a wind triangle, you can ball-park estimate the effect without any tools at all, right?

 

[fiveoboy01]

So are calculators, do you still supporting teaching kids how too add and subtract without needing a machine to do it?


To the OP, bust out some paper and sit down with your CFI and do it the hard way, that's what you're paying for, using FF or fltplan is just going to short change yourself at this point in the game.

Later on, FltPlan is the go to for all things flight planning, fore flight is a great EFB, but when it comes to routes. Fuel burns, ETEs and whatnot, fltplan is by far the best.

Again, till you earn your ticket leave the electronic stuff alone, maybe have your CFI show you at the tail end of your training, but you really need to be doing everything long hand right now, if that makes sense.

He's doing IFR training. He should have learned how to do all those basics on paper during primary.

I don't do anything on paper. All my flight planning is done on the EFB, fuel burn, wind correction, ETE... and it's super easy. I know that makes you and(especially) Ed mad, but I don't care.
I even (GASP) do W&B with ForeFlight. I don't even know where my E6B is... How do you like that? Call me a Magenta child, I don't care. I know how to work smarter, not harder.

Good God, I suppose I should be required to always hand fly with a single VOR IFR.

 

[EdFred]

Hey, if you want to half ass everything go ahead. But everyone that sits behind the stick *should* be able to do everything without it being spoon fed to them, not that they *must* do it. You maegnta-liners are just as bad as the pull the chute just because the engine stumbled idiots.

A lot of you can't even make a 75 mile flight without your magenta blanket. What happens when it goes TU and you don't have a chute to pull?

 

[drotto]

Hey, if you want to half ass everything go ahead. But everyone that sits behind the stick *should* be able to do everything without it being spoon fed to them, not that they *must* do it. You maegnta-liners are just as bad as the pull the chute just because the engine stumbled idiots.

A lot of you can't even make a 75 mile flight without your magenta blanket. What happens when it goes TU and you don't have a chute to pull?

First of all, I know how to do it all by hand. Yes, I did it all by hand in primary training, I learned on a steam gauge trainer with one VOR and no GPS. I never touched an aviation GPS till after I had my PPL. In fact my school evens recommends that primary students don't get FF till after they have their ticket. Nothing is being spoon fed here. With that said, if you know the principles, and am capable of doing it all by hand, what is the harm in using tech? I think 99% of pilots would agree that electronic maps are a massive improvement over paper. I challenge you to find a commercial pilot that uses anything other than FF or something similar to do flight planning. Yes, you need to do the "does it make sense" check especially with technology, is the aid acting like you expect it too.

I also know when I take the IFR written, it must be by hand. From the practice questions, I think route planning IFR is easier from a number crunching standpoint since the FAA gives you most of the distances and headings, no measuring wrong, or finding the wrong angle. Plus, your "landmarks" are defined point as opposed to random ground based objects. That in itself make route planning faster.

Wow did this thread go off on a tangent. My initial question likely could have been worded better, but I planned a route then looked under the route section on FF, and saw what it spit out. That got me to wondering if I should plan the trip as I saw fit, and if I did how likely would I be to get it. Knowing the ATC tends to do what it wants (and I 100% understand and know why) and everything that I propose is likely to get overridden.

 

[EdFred]

@drotto

I was not addressing you with my comments, as I saw you said you still do things by hand, but those that can only function with a magenta line. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Hey, if you want to half ass everything go ahead. But everyone that sits behind the stick *should* be able to do everything without it being spoon fed to them, not that they *must* do it. You maegnta-liners are just as bad as the pull the chute just because the engine stumbled idiots.

A lot of you can't even make a 75 mile flight without your magenta blanket. What happens when it goes TU and you don't have a chute to pull?

LMAO.

Ed, I don't care what your(or any elitist a-hole's) opinion of me is. Keep beating the magenta line drum. I'll laugh while I let my airplane fly itself, more perfectly than you ever could.

 

[EdFred]

LMAO.

Ed, I don't care what your(or any elitist a-hole's) opinion of me is. Keep beating the magenta line drum. I'll laugh while I let my airplane fly itself, more perfectly than you ever could.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. I can teach a retarded monkey to push in the throttle and push the autopilot button. Having the ability to do that does not make one a pilot. It makes one, well, a retarded monkey that can push buttons. But hey, if you can get off knowing you have all capabilities and mental acuity of a retarded monkey, have at it. And if you can't or won't make a flight without a GPS and fully admit that you are deficient at having the ability to complete a flight without one, expect to be chided for it, because, well, you suck as a pilot. And yes, based on what you said, I think your abilities are right there with a retarded monkey. And that's not being elitist, that expecting to share the skies with people that can perform basic airmanship. Button-pushing-simians are not those people.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Someday I will be as awesome of a pilot as you, Ed. Until then, I will let the AP and GPS do the work for me. They still fly the airplane better than you can.

 

[EdFred]

I never said I was awesome. I never said I flew without GPS. But I do expect people to be able to basic things without just pushing buttons. I'm not the guy you want to come to for a flight review, because I actually expect people to be able to do things.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Well, you're the one that took it from using an EFB for route planning and W&B and turned it into an airmanship argument. I used the term Magenta Child because inevitably you'd be in here to chastise me for using modern tech. I can use a paper sectional, and do it all on paper, but I don't want to. Your insults reveal a lot about you. Get over yourself. I'll do it my way, and you do it yours.

 

[EdFred]

And what exactly do they reveal? This should be interesting.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'll let readers draw their own conclusions. This monkey isn't taking your bait.

Off to go flying, hopefully my GPS and autopilot don't fail, or I will surely die.

 

[azure]

I also know when I take the IFR written, it must be by hand. From the practice questions, I think route planning IFR is easier from a number crunching standpoint since the FAA gives you most of the distances and headings, no measuring wrong, or finding the wrong angle. Plus, your "landmarks" are defined point as opposed to random ground based objects. That in itself make route planning faster.

Minor point: actually, there is (or was) one flight planning problem in the test bank where on one of the legs, the only way to get the distance is with a straightedge since the chart doesn't show a DME distance for that leg. I think it was somewhere in Oregon; not sure since it's been a long time.