Wow.. that's gotta be one gorgeous flight..First, to have no mis-understanding.. If I were to take this flight, I'd most definately prefer to have a nice GPS line to follow, even though I'd probably hit 'Direct' few times for a new line, as I took sight-seeing detours.. lol.. And that's one of the GPS marvels.. and instant, direct course at any time.If the airplane had no GPS, I'd have no problem flying a relatively direct course tracking a radial outbound for as long as it was possible.. and then picking up an inbound radial at the destination.. I'd probably not need any fixes (VFR), but I could surely pick up one or two of my own choice between tracking those two radials.. and a lamdmark or two for good measure... Perfectly direct is not an issue, per the sight-seeing.. but if needed, I'd just fly at an altitude where my fixes could be easily found, and fly pretty darn direct by VOR only.Now if this were a flight in IMC ... I'd still obviously prefer to fly it by GPS, but my filed plan would not be direct. I'd have to sit down with a low-altitude, enroute IFR chart to post specifics... I'd just prefer to not be flying in the mountains, IMC, and NOT be able to instantly revert to VOR navigtion ..Also.. in VFR conditions.. that flight could easily be flow relatively directly, by dead-reckoning and pilotage.. :(

Wow.. that's gotta be one gorgeous flight..First, to have no mis-understanding.. If I were to take this flight, I'd most definately prefer to have a nice GPS line to follow, even though I'd probably hit 'Direct' few times for a new line, as I took sight-seeing detours.. lol.. And that's one of the GPS marvels.. and instant, direct course at any time.If the airplane had no GPS, I'd have no problem flying a relatively direct course tracking a radial outbound for as long as it was possible.. and then picking up an inbound radial at the destination.. I'd probably not need any fixes (VFR), but I could surely pick up one or two of my own choice between tracking those two radials.. and a lamdmark or two for good measure... Perfectly direct is not an issue, per the sight-seeing.. but if needed, I'd just fly at an altitude where my fixes could be easily found, and fly pretty darn direct by VOR only.Now if this were a flight in IMC ... I'd still obviously prefer to fly it by GPS, but my filed plan would not be direct. I'd have to sit down with a low-altitude, enroute IFR chart to post specifics... I'd just prefer to not be flying in the mountains, IMC, and NOT be able to instantly revert to VOR navigtion ..Also.. in VFR conditions.. that flight could easily be flow relatively directly, by dead-reckoning and pilotage.. :(

I almost always fly the airways in the western US mountains-not because I'm worried about gps failure but because the airways give you automatic obstruction clearance, and a very clear route for SAR in case you go down. (look how long it took to find Steve Fosset)...

I almost always fly the airways in the western US mountains-not because I'm worried about gps failure but because the airways give you automatic obstruction clearance, and a very clear route for SAR in case you go down. (look how long it took to find Steve Fosset)...

Tha too :(

For an example of What "I got" Mr adamson.Keep in mind this is rough and I ran into a few problems solely on the idea of using a Piper Cherokee for it (Altititude/TAS)That said:The way you mentioned which cuts off at Enice and follows through to Page - I like that route ( I actually did a double take since it was the route I had planned out for myself, with dead reckoning points along the way. I looked at your two airports and decided to pull up skyvector to toy with it, and that was an interesting surprise) . There are a few questions though that come with it:The first - Altitude, MEA for the route in that particular section is 12,000. Since you're headed eastbound in that section legally you need to be at 13,500 to have a good chance of an un-interupted VOR signal and line of sight, alternatively you could try to dead reckon through it. But I wouldn't care to try that, Since I've seen the nasty things mountains can produce on a whim.at 13,500 a pilot has............30 minutes without oxygen. So Is time on your side? Can you fly fast? :) at 120 Knots TAS or so, the time I calculated without Winds was about 45 minutes. That cuts out the option of 13,500You could fly lower than 13,500, and rely on your GPS as your only Navaid........Again though, that's not exactly my thing. Being lower than the peaks I'm flying through doesn't float my boat either. There's a longer safer alternative to the south. Follow the fifteen down through Cedar city pop out east of Georgetown and it's smooth sailing south of the mountain range..........But that's time and fuel. Time is generally free when you love something but the Fuel costs $$.Of course, I used dead reckoning in figuring my flightplans with the aid of VOR, and GPS would be a welcome friend. Through the sole use of GPS and dead reckoning there's a mountain valley route with plenty of airports along the way, No help from VOR but with a GPS and the really old fashioned type of nav (If I follow this canyon long enough..........) You can get there as well. I'd be much more apprehensive about taking that route versus the ones I've listed though. Neither way would have you "Out of the hornet's nest" the entire time (At least in a Cherokee without oxygen). Each route has its own particular flaws in the case of traveling between these airports. That is in my mind though, all the more reason to have backup - I believe I'd probably mix it up and fly to the fifteen freeway at a lower altitude, Climbing to 13,500 along the fifteen for a peak altitude, Over the peaks :). I'd then descend back to safer O2 levels once 25 minutes has passed, OR - i've passed bryce. Whichever comes first. This is under the assumption of getting to 13,500 (Which I can't hahahah, But I'm sure your high performance Can)The cherokee would have difficulties in the best of times getting there, and it would be slow as a snail if it did.Because of that, I'd probably just go south altogether. Yes it's longer, yes it's more expensive, but I like to fly anyway, and it's a safer less mountanous route. :)My own notes while bumbling over the chart and developing a flightplan (If I actually had to fly it it would look a lot neater with all the I's dotted and the T's crossed, but this is my outline, anyway)Fly course 161 (V21) on SLC 119.05 Above 8,000 Switch to FFU 116.6 NOTE: R6412 9000-10000 Feet Restricted By Notam, Check with briefer, If restricted Do not Pass Abeamof the state prisonVisual Checkpoint - Over FFU Mountain abeam the "inward corner" of the lakeFly Course 186 From FFU 116.6 Eureka- Visual checkpointSwitch to Inbound 188, on the DTA 116.1 VORDelta City - Visual CheckpointContinue South course 170 on DTA 116.1Checkpoint abeam Clear lakeCheckpoint US15 (Follow the 15 southbound)Continue to intercept bryce 112.8 323 Radial at Checkpoint Beaver (Town)Watch for the Radio facility (Checkpoint) caution Peaks 11331 to north, and 9540/10140 south (Thousand feet higher than anything else, they should stick out ;) )Panguitch U55 airport (Checkpoint)Fly course 105 Outbound from Bryce 112.8Power lines (Checkpoint)Direct course inbound Page VOR 117.6Another option, is to take Milford to Cedar city to read Matzo intersection/ Hurricane/Letter HFrom there neither Kanab, nor Colorado city would be difficult to reckon your way to Page.Then again, that same way is almost as easy as "Follow the fifteen freeway after enice and down past cedar city/canyon" if you wanted to make it really simple.

When I started in 1968, we didn't have GPS either. Soooo..........neither one of us are "stupid". And yes, I am aware that parts of the world do not yet have the GPS coverage, and especially WAAS as we do (even if one satellite is out). And since you're in Columbia, the Boeing 757 Cali, Columbia accident is one of the important ones on my "flight into terrain" list. The aircraft had it's modern flight computer for it's time (1995), but didn't have what we refer to as a large moving map display, that's now widely available for even portables, let alone a Garmin 1000. I can guarentee, that had the 757 been equipped with even the hand-held GPS that I have today................it wouldn't have gone down in those mountains. The pilots would have sensed the screwup immediately, as the "big picture" wouild have been right in front of their eyes. And it's the same for the commuter jet that took off on the wrong & too short runway a few years back, with a total loss of lives. My 696 presents an airport runway & taxiway layout, with my aircrafts position. The pilots of this plane would have noticed the wrong runway , had they had up to date technology. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of commercial jets in operation, that have much less navigational capibility than todays Cessna 172 trainers. I also live in a mountainous area where an average of three flight into terrain accidents would occur every year. BTW-- my son will be down that way next month. L.Adamson

757s have always had a moving map display.

Ryan, I do believe you've misunderstood. Zig Zagging refers to VOR to VOR. I'm including two pics from the AOPA flight planner. This is a destination I fly several times every year. The first pic is "direct". It's shorter and faster. I don't usually fly total direct, because I'll include a few airports and scenic areas. We have some extremely scenic national parks around here. However, at best, the route will only contain two VORs. When flying out of Salt Lake City Class B, there is also a restricted military base in the path.Pic 2 is the "zig zag", which I have absolutely no reason to fly. It wouldn't make much sense. I simply don't have too, because I've got a far better method.I get there faster, use less fuel, and see more of what I want to, by flying my own "GPS" route. And in this case, triangulating off VORs wouldn't work well either, as the mountains are higher than the airplane, much of the time.L.Adamson

The zig zag route has one pretty good reason to fly. It is safer. The zig zag route keeps you over lower terrain. Your direct route exposes you to much more risk by keeping you over higher terrain for a longer amount of time.

RyanB said,"Then again, that same way is almost as easy as "Follow the fifteen freeway after Enice and down past Cedar City/Canyon" if you wanted to make it really simple."Geofa said,"Also.. in VFR conditions.. that flight could easily be flown relatively directly, by dead-reckoning and pilotage... :( "Like I said many times before, I am NOT a RW pilot, but I have followed this and the other conversation (in another forum) for a while, because it's a very interesting topic. When flying in the sim, I use the GPS as a reference tool just to make sure I'm on the right course, and plan out the route using sectionals and the Flight Plan tool from SkyVector. Because I like to fly VFR low and slow, I would probably pick my way through the mountains and navigate using dead reckoning and pilotage, since I'm not the best yet with IFR.It does bring up a question about pilotage, though (and forgive me if this question sounds too na

This(And the zig zag isn't that much longer either, though it presents its own problems)

The zig zag route has one pretty good reason to fly. It is safer. The zig zag route keeps you over lower terrain. Your direct route exposes you to much more risk by keeping you over higher terrain for a longer amount of time.

RyanB said,"Then again, that same way is almost as easy as "Follow the fifteen freeway after Enice and down past Cedar City/Canyon" if you wanted to make it really simple."Geofa said,"Also.. in VFR conditions.. that flight could easily be flown relatively directly, by dead-reckoning and pilotage... :( "Like I said many times before, I am NOT a RW pilot, but I have followed this and the other conversation (in another forum) for a while, because it's a very interesting topic. When flying in the sim, I use the GPS as a reference tool just to make sure I'm on the right course, and plan out the route using sectionals and the Flight Plan tool from SkyVector. Because I like to fly VFR low and slow, I would probably pick my way through the mountains and navigate using dead reckoning and pilotage, since I'm not the best yet with IFR.It does bring up a question about pilotage, though (and forgive me if this question sounds too na

It does bring up a question about pilotage, though (and forgive me if this question sounds too na

Not exactly alan,Illegal - No (You can pretty much do whatever the hell you want minus FAR 91 in VFR) Your basic problems are weather, altitude, airspace, fuel, weight and balance Day night VFR Requirements TFR's...................And Really not a whole lot more (Maybe some minor things......like not throwing bowling balls out your airplane unless you're in an unpopulated area and the land owner approves) Really though, as a VFR Pilot you can plan "Whatever" as long as it's SAFE and done within the LAW. Which as said you can only go so high, go for so long, and you need to talk to the right people to get through airspace and sometimes you cant fly through airspace period (Restricted). You also don't stand a flying chance in a thunderstorm with a single engine prop - That's a really bad situation (Flight into Icing is illegal, flying into any weather phenomenon which endagers safety IE Severe turbulence is (Not sure if its illegal but I wouldn't do it anyway in fear of my own life I know that you are REQUIRED to report such), Electrical storms, for the VFR Pilot........clouds.... etc.)A typical example of what..........Dead reckoning is though, can be found in my written out example. I am using Dead reckoning - with VOR as my helper, and I could use GPS on top of that to help me even more.go to skyvector and punch in the waypointsKSLCFFUDTAENICEBCE37

I do know of pilot's who have flown a "black line" on a GPS without a lot of thought to what's along that black line route. In two cases, it was flight instructors and students. One accident was fatal for three, and the other accident had two very lucky people, as the aircraft hit trees on a ridgeline during a very black & moonless night. They didn't see the mountain at all. The reason I say "black line", is because these GPS's were the older point to point variety. No color, and no terrain or obstacles. Since both of these accidents were in my normal cross country flight area, I've duplicated both, with my terrain database GPS. With the info I have, there is no way I'd hit these mountains. The GPS is blasting warnings into my headphones, and the screen is flashing red.In the case of the survivors hitting a ridge, the plan was to fly VOR to VOR, and open the IFR flight plan while airborne. It was around 10:00 P.M. I don't know if they set the OBS, or just used the VORs as GPS waypoints. What they didn't do, is look at the sectional, and notice one mountain in the path of their 8500' flight level. The rest is flat desert. Luckily for them, it was winter snows to cushion the impact, and they had cellphones that worked, considering the remote area.I've already mentioned that I never just hit a "direct too" button and go for it. I plan every cross country. I just prefer flying direct to places of interest, and I'm not encumbered by a VOR to VOR system. There is nothing wrong with that. Flying direct is much more the norm these days, thanks to GPS. Geof A. has already said the same thing. In reality, there are many who are flying for years, using the GPS and not radio nav. It just depends how you do it . You can blindly follow the magenta line, or blindly follow a VOR to VOR path. The results can be just as disastrous.FWIW, there is no doubt in my mind, that I'd rather be in an aircraft equipped with a modern moving map color GPS with terrain features, than an older radio nav only airplane...............when flying IFR. And I wouldn't care in the least, if the pilot hadn't dialed OBS's for years. I'd just want the pilot to be profiecient with the GPS/ glass panel setup. Just far too many accidents with the "old" navigation method. For proof, look up the enhanced ground warning system. It's the one with GPS combined with radar. The accident level went down greatly, when this modern piece of equipment was put into use.L.Adamson

It's not about whether you use GPS or VORs or you have moving map displays. It's about how you back yourself up. There's aboslutely nothing wrong with going GPS direct somewhere as long you have some other method of verifying where you are and that your direct line does not expose you to more terrain, wx, airspace, etc. risk, than if you went some less direct way.

So uhhh........Landing without landing lights.......Fun times eh? :(

Does anyone besides me reading this thread think than none of us are disagreement with each other at all?I am having a real hard time figuring out what all the arguing is about...I realize avsim has been a calm place for quite a few days...

It's not about whether you use GPS or VORs or you have moving map displays. It's about how you back yourself up. There's aboslutely nothing wrong with going GPS direct somewhere as long you have some other method of verifying where you are and that your direct line does not expose you to more terrain, wx, airspace, etc. risk, than if you went some less direct way.

Several items here. First, I usually deviate a bit from "direct". I already said that.I do have a well working oxygen system.XM Satellite weatherOn board satelitte messenger, that leaves a trail as well as an emergency button for an instant GPS coordinateSurvival gearTerrain and risk???I've often said, that so many of my airliner pilot friends will no longer feel comfortable over mountains in a single engine aircraft. Yes, they've become use to the redundency of multi engines & high altitudes. So who can blame them? I, on the other hand get rather bored flying across the flat desert area populated with VORs. I'm well versed in mountain flying, but who knows. The mountains took the life of one of a better known mountain pilot recently. He had wrote many books and courses on the subject. It's just an acceptable risk for me. My plane is capable of flying over 20,000'. It has a far greater clime rate than a typical Cessna or Piper. At least three times as much. This makes density altitude and up/down drafts easier to live with. The commercial pilot I share a hangar with, no longer feels all that comfortable over mountains either; but on the other hand, he's always flying hardcore aerobatics in his supersized Pitt's with a Russian radial of about 400 horsepower. Leaving one risk for another, I suppose.In the meantime, there is a lot of beautiful country out here. The Grand Canyon or Yellowstone is only a couple of hours in either direction. Same with Lake Powell, Monument Valley, Sedona Arizona and many other places of interest. It's only a couple of minutes out of my local airport before I'm over mountains myself. This is an area that doubles for the Alps in various movies.L.Adamson