Does anyone navigate using dead reckoning?

[vololiberista 205]

. This is about "Can I fly using the bare minimum navigation aids if I have to?"

 

 

Hook

 

You do have to. It's the law!!!!

[woodhick 504]

I'd bet that most real world pilots, once past whatever tests they have to do, (I have no real world experience) never pick up the tools necessary for DR flying again. In the sim world we can practice things that someone in a 1 million (or a whole lot more) dollar airplane doesn't want to even think about. CFIT crash??? Hit the esc key and no harm done in our world.

[brucek 38]

Every pilot in the US (at least) has learned to fly with DR, the private pilot's check ride requires the candidate to demonstrate this, albeit with distractions and a route change in flight (no pause button in RL ). I was required to prepare a flgiht plan by DR prior to the day of my check-ride, and had to give this to the DE before we commenced the oral portion of the test. Also, most active pilots are required to perform at least a bi-ennual (every 2 years) check with a CFI. What this is comprised of is largely up to the CFI and the pilot to mutually agree on, however every one that I have done has included the "failure" of the GPS, and I have had to show that I know where I am (not lost), and a means of navigating back to the airport (and sometimes the NAV receivers "fail" as well). DR is something that is "once learned and never forgotten", usually.

 

Thanks, Bruce.

[Manny 1,293]

GPS with WAAS changes everything about what was said about GPS earlier... and thiis becoming very popular. Before WAAS, GPS was not to be relied upon too much..It was to augment your regular NAV for situational awareness ....Right?

 

But with GPS/WAAS, GPS can be used as primary gauge for approaches... In fact Waas with LPV is considered precision approach ..almost close to ILS.... DH = 250AGL while ILS is 200agl. If you have reality XP or F1 G1000, learn to use the RNAV/GPS approaches with LPV. Coupled with AP, Its lot of fun. Its almost like flying the PMDG aircrafts with autoland... except for the last mintue flair. and many smaller airports who find ILS as too expensive to install now have WAAS approaches.... more and more are being issued in the US. WAAS changes everything. Its a combination of Satellite and ground instruments.

 

But DR is still loads of fun.. I even like doing NDB approaches with wind drifts...

[woodhick 504]

Now I'm going to really light things up: I'm betting, given equal flight sim situations, the DR pilot is a better pilot (hands on??, more??) than a program the airplane and "monitor 'til your eyes fall out pilot".

 

Better situational awareness at least, I'm betting. Now I'm going to "unfollow" this topic and fade away. (LOL)

[LHookins 3,117]

I'm betting, given equal flight sim situations, the DR pilot is a better

 

I've been flying the A2A B377 Stratrocruiser lately, and it's another world, a totally different mindset, than GA flying. Now I know why descriptions of tubeliner fight reminded me more of flying the Orbiter spacecraft sim more than tooling around at lower altitude in the Grumman Goose, for example.

 

I did the flight from NTGJ to SCIP (Easter Island!) recently using the same dead reckoning procedures as before. Winds aloft had little to do with what I'd worked up in pre-flight planning except in a very general way. While my time of flight was way off, when I picked up the 75 mile NDB at Easter Island, I was only 3 degrees off (to the right) on a flight of 1405 miles. That's about 4 miles at the destination. Either I've been incredibly lucky, or this is a lot easier than it looks.

 

Flight plan: Depart at 89 degrees, turn left two degrees every hour. A no-wind flight plan would have departed at 91 degrees. I had to fly longer at lower altitudes than I'd expected, as the plane didn't want to climb much above 12000 feet on takeoff. After a while I climbed to 15000, then at the two hour mark I climbed to 20000, my original target. Then I flew at reduced power; I had plenty of fuel, but wanted to get dinner served to the passengers. I would have stayed at 15000, but was getting some turbulence.

 

Highlight of the flight: Pitcairn Island 10 miles off my port wing.

 

Hook

[vololiberista 205]

The problem with GPS is that it's like electronic calculators in that people place too much reliance on gadgets such as these. Almost all of us now reach for the calculator to do even simple arithmetic instead of doing in our heads. GPS puts one into a false sense of security and therefore pilots don't use the mark 1 eyeball instead relying on technology that requires satellites not only being both in the correct position but operational!!!

GPS has its uses and is great for fixing the lat and long of a perticular object/landmark. But for short distance flights the mark 1 eyeball plus radio aids as backup. Long distance: inertial navigation rules.

[Piggles 17]

Another fan here of VFR navigation in single engine GA planes. I use charts, plan the flight from scratch, check weather, forecast winds, calculate times and the wind correction and go fly. I find doing all this reduces the difference between simming and real world flying, making the whole sim experience in light aircraft more enjoyable.

 

GPS and RW - I always plan navigation in the real world the same way as above though for flights over the Channel or at night I will use VOR.

 

I do carry a moving map GPS as a back-up. It really helps occasionally to glance at it and get quick confirmation that position correlates to where I think I am, I don't though 'follow the line' as I would rather be looking outside and to be honest with calculated headings and times I find navigation really relaxing and enjoyable.

 

I've been a passenger once too often with PPLs fiddling with a GPS that they don't understand properly or isn't working properly (or how they expected), whilst I was looking out the window thinking ' why don't they just fly it the easy way'. So not for me a trap I want to fall into, especially not in the UKs crowded and busy airspace.(I do though find my moving map GPS with its CAA charts helps with situational awareness of airspace boundaries - so it's all about how one goes about using the device)

 

I think though this is very much an environment thing, for a long distance flight across the US it might well be a totally different proposition to rely on the GPS more, so I respect different views on the topic.

[woodhick 504]

I gotta tell ya Hook, you're way beyond me in what you are doing. If I haven't said it before I'll say it now, every time I do a DR, hands on (no auto-pilot of course) flight in the Cub I come back a better sim pilot.

[LHookins 3,117]

If I haven't said it before I'll say it now, every time I do a DR, hands on (no auto-pilot of course) flight in the Cub I come back a better sim pilot.

 

I agree completely. It's one reason I started this topic.

 

I gotta tell ya Hook, you're way beyond me in what you are doing.

 

I'm not doing anything special. Actually, I'd have no idea whatsoever how to plot a great circle route on a flat paper map. Due to the wonders of modern comptometration(*), I can load up Plan-G, plot a direct route, then edit the plan. Zoom in on the little drag box for the leg in edit mode and drag it over the line. Repeat as necessary for both halves that you've just produced until you have something close to an hour on each leg. If you're using Skyvector, there's no edit box and you have to eyeball the center of the route, then just grab the line and drag a bit and it will allow you to insert a "GPS" point.

 

There's some trig involved that you can do in your head: If you're one degree off course, you'll be one mile off at 60 miles. And now you know everything I do.

 

(*) I made that up. It's from the word Comptometer, a trademark for an early mechanical desktop calculator. Yes, I'm old enough to have seen one and even played with it. It's got almost as many buttons as a Chinese linotype.

 

Hook

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

This my favorite topic dead reckoning because learn bits and pieces from it over time, single engine planes are my preferred and use radio towers and beacons flashing to navigate. Too scared to fly water like cross ocean because don't want to be sharks or whale food :(

[1Wolf 8]

...I've been a passenger once too often with PPLs fiddling with a GPS that they don't understand properly or isn't working properly (or how they expected), whilst I was looking out the window thinking ' why don't they just fly it the easy way'. So not for me a trap I want to fall into, especially not in the UKs crowded and busy airspace.(I do though find my moving map GPS with its CAA charts helps with situational awareness of airspace boundaries - so it's all about how one goes about using the device)...

 

I've seen the exact same. Under VFR eyes should be outside flying by reference to the horizon, watching for traffic, watching the weather, making sure you know where you are, etc. Any time eyes are inside would be just for crosschecking instruments with what you are seeing, communicating, and checking engine instruments. I think thats one of the 'bad' habits that folks pick up from Flight Sims when transitioning to real world flight...too much eyes inside, and too much watching the instruments, and not enough eyes outside. Someone picking up their PPL actually learns the opposite, their instructor wants their eyes out of the cockpit.

 

I haven't flown in years...since around '94 or '95, and never had the opportunity to fly with a GPS. They do all these nifty things and for me, it would probably just be tickled pink by the fact that its a map that I don't have to know origami to be able to fold, unfold, and still fit in the little Cessna cockpit. It always gives me a chuckle because those who haven't flown in a tiny plane have no idea how difficult it is to maneuver those big maps in such a confined space, actually be able to read anything much less use a plotter, and still fly the plane and scan for traffic

[woodhick 504]

There's some trig involved that you can do in your head: If you're one degree off course, you'll be one mile off at 60 miles. And now you know everything I do.

 

(*) I made that up. It's from the word Comptometer, a trademark for an early mechanical desktop calculator. Yes, I'm old enough to have seen one and even played with it. It's got almost as many buttons as a Chinese linotype.

 

 

TRIG???!!! IN YOUR HEAD????!!!! I got the biggest laugh from that. I can't hardly even add, subtract, multiply and divide in my pea brain and now you want 'trig in my head"????!!! I got a real chuckle Hook.

 

You spoke about having seen a "comptometer" and even played with it (as a child I assume). I am old enough to have seen one in everyday use. I also remember the very first Texas Instruments (TI) 4 function calculator I ever saw. It was in use at a chemical plant where I worked. It cost over $700.00 and the the unit supervisor had to lock it up every night so it wouldn't be stolen (mid-1960's I think).

 

Times do change, but trig in my head??? No way ;-)

[keithb77 312]

Anyone read Francis Chichester's autobiography "The Lonely Sea and the Sky"?

He flew across the pacific solo in a biplane in the 30's, with a combination of sun-shots, DR and 'off-course navigation' to find tiny islands too small for the DR error margin. See the WikiP article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Chichester

It refers to a wartime manual that Chichester wrote that "allowed the pilots of single-handed fighter aircraft to navigate across Europe and back using kneeboard navigation similar to that which he had used in the Pacific" - it would be interesting to read that book.

I have found this - http://aafcollection.info/items/documents/view.php?file=000021-01-03.pdf

 

Back to FSX - can we take sunshots? There is an FS2004 sextant, which might work in FSX (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/280024-sextant-for-fsx/)

Cheers

Keith

[Piggles 17]

The 1 in 60 rule is so you don't have to do trig in your head! It comes from small angle theory and allows one to set a new course to the destination.

 

I prefer Standard Closing Angle calculations, which again were derived from small angle theory. It is not so good for low speed (It's a fast jet thing really) but can still be used for light aircraft (with fudge factors if required). Worth taking a look at for those interested. (I won't attempt an explanation of the calculations as Google is your friend with this one!)

 

The idea with SCA is that rather than giving a new course to the destination, it returns you back on your planned course with a revised ETA. A good idea if you are negotiating terrain or airspace.

 

The calculations can be done before you fly as an example the standard closing angle at 100 kts (TAS) is 36 degrees. Which is useful because as soon as I get in a plane even 2+3 seems like a bit of challenge to me!

 

So one would have a magnetic heading of say 172 degrees. Then you find you are one nautical mile off track to the left, you need to turn right to regain the track, the calculated SCA gives 172 degrees + 36 degrees = 208 degrees. Fly this heading for 1 minute for each mile off track and one will regain the original track and can then turn back on 172 degrees. A separate calculation gives that for each minute you were flying the SCA you add 15 seconds to the ETA.

 

The great thing with simulators is we can try all these things out in a simulated flight and see how well they work for us. (Or not as the case may be!).

 

In the real world and before a sim flight I calculate the SCA and apply the correction to each of my planned headings for deviations left and right (simple task in a spread sheet), that way it's there for me during a flight at a glance.