Time markers not recommended?

[motzartmerv]

Thats good Kaz, no-one is trying to disswade you from what you have been taught.

 

The common point made by many is that the mile marks are constant. The thing that is not constant is the groundspeed. So it could take you 10 minutes to get to your next marker, or it could take 5 minutes.So while the distance between your lines on the map is constant, the time intervals can be vastly varied.

 

The whole idea of the minute markers is to remove this inconsistency, so the pilot knows that the distance between each marker is 6 minutes, regardless of wind strength. The pilot can then half the distance between markers and has a 3 minute marker. An so on, so now you will know precisely where you should be on the map simply by looking at your watch, instead of crawling the track, and waiting for fixes to get groundspeed calc's, the system is instant, if you arrive 1 minute late on your 6 minute marker you know straight away your eta will need revision etc.

 

Also performing a diversion with no features is easier. You simply take note of the time, and once again you will have an instant distance along track to make your turn.

 

Like i keep saying, whatever works for you, stick with it.

 

 

[Tomo]

Just like 1 and 2 equals 3, and half of 2 and 2 equals 3.................

 

We are basically working the same way - really.

 

The only difference I can see is, if your cruise is 60kts - your so called '6 minute' markers will only be 6nm apart. Wheres if your cruising at 120kts - they will be 12nm apart!

 

That is THE only difference I can see between the two ways of doing it?!

 

If you mark 10nm out, you still 'time' it, you still update you eta etc etc.... If you do your 10nm in 3 minutes or 7 minutes... still works the same....

 

I have a feeling we're all in the same boat, just looking over a different hand rail.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

... instead of crawling the track, and waiting for fixes to get groundspeed calc's,..

Motz; What do you mean by "crawling the track"? You've mentioned it several times in a context that indicates you feel it undesirable or obviated by your 6 minute marks method.

 

...I have a feeling we're all in the same boat, just looking over a different hand rail.

I'm inclined to agree, however I can see an advantage in Motz's method if you are over featureless terrain and thus have no reference points with which to confirm your position between your required 30 minute fixes. In that case you'd be flying a heading for a time and then looking for the expected feature.

 

My instructor certainly expected me to know exactly where I was at all times, and would occasionally ask me to point to our location on the map. I don't imagine he expected me to take time to do calculations, but rather to respond immediately and justify my location with reference to map features that could be identified by sight.

 

 

[farri]

Just a reminder to everyone of Burbles original comment..... (The D-H book needs revision to explain why some things should not be used - or better still to say that time markers are just another option, rather than slamming the method).

 

It would be far more constructive for everyone to just state their prefered method and the reasons for choosing that method.

 

Frank.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I disagree with so much of that technique i don't know where to start. As per farri's wise words i will give my reasons why.

 

1. Track should be established before reaching cruise height (usually within 2 miles of departure point). This removes the possibility of gross errors.

 

2.If winds are not as forcast, or your plan was not accurate, the area you would be looking for yourself on the map (to get this pinpoint) could be vastly different from where you actually are. So you could easily See features you think are the ones your map is indicating, but alas, they are not.

 

3. you then draw more lines (inflight) to where you want to go from where you think you are, changing heading again and adding to the error.

 

4. Even if the plan does work, and you have a new flight plan to your destination from the is new position, how does this new track co incide with your original plan?. are you going to remain clear of CTA?, restricted areas. whats your new lowest safe altitude? Is the terrain suitable for a forced landing? which may have been the reason you chose the track you did in preparation.What about fuel?, last light? are all these factors accounted for?

 

5. I assume you are using a protractor or something similar to get this 'track error"? in other words, a complete new flight plan in flight.

 

No offence CFI, but i expect much more accuracy out of people i am going to sign out for navigation.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I give up. You haven't helped me with any of my points above, a clearof check?? are you serious, thats your answer. Mate, my mind is boggling.

 

OK, point 1. I teach an easy technique to establish yourself on track after ANY sort of departure..are you saying to just forge on KNOWING that your not on track?

 

2. clearof check is going to help your guys find there way home how exactly. The clearof is the cockpit cycle of activity check. Compass, you said "is it right"??what exactly does that mean/..is it wobbling?..is it toppled??..or perhaps you meant to say is it aligned with the DG. Or do you mean, am i on the heading i planned for??..that helps you how?? if the winds are different??engine and altitude are going to keep you on course how??

 

radio??...again, is that going to keep you on course or help you "pinpoint" your position??...

 

Orientation, to the sun???....are you kidding me..... orientate the map in the direction of travel is what is meant by orientation. Not where is the sun, are we pilots or indians on a trek across the desert??

 

Im afraid your reply has left me stunned... I think you need to change your handle..

 

 

[deadstick]

1. If u depart..off-track u have "shot yourself in the foot"...when we flight plan..we draw a line from the depature AD to the destination. If we depart (for example) on downwind...we are not on "track" to start with!

 

 

Isn't the rule on track within 5 miles from point of takeoff and departure time is adjusted to reflect this? bit grey on that one!

[kaz3g]

Mozartmerv said:

 

Thats good Kaz, no-one is trying to disswade you from what you have been taught.

 

The common point made by many is that the mile marks are constant. The thing that is not constant is the groundspeed. So it could take you 10 minutes to get to your next marker, or it could take 5 minutes.So while the distance between your lines on the map is constant, the time intervals can be vastly varied....

 

Yes, absolutely true. But I think the correct place to record times is on your flight plan, not on your chart. I record estimated times between known points based on my weather forecast and actual times elapsed. From those I calculate revised estimates for remaining legs as necessary.

 

My original point holds true, however. Do you really think it will be a simple job to find you if you call "105 minutes SE of BHI"? Or worse, do you think you can do the arithmetic to convert your revised time intervals remaining to miles when the fan stops? Now let's see, I TAS at 100 but the majority of Austers only do 80 so in 105 minutes I have travelled 175 miles and another may have travelled only 140 miles. That means the missing aircraft is somewhere in a circle of around 2700 sq miles. Sure, you can narrow it down (can you?) by giving a pretty good estimate of the track made good from your heading and your last fix but it still makes that search a more difficult job.

 

It's easy when the distances are small and there are lots of features to use for a fix, but it's not so easy when you are crossing 100's of miles of sameness way outback.

 

Good discussion if we all keep our minds working on criticisms of the argument and not a particular proponent.

 

kaz

 

 

[foxy]

apologies for the ignorance, kaz...but, why would you be calling 105 minutes sth of wherever if the fan stops? it should be a distance call...noone other than you know how far you're gunna travel in those minutes. with a distance...you're more locatable. whether you are using minute or mile markers, in an area with or without features, following on your flight plan, and map, should easily give you reference to a locatable area...not a 2700 square mile zone. and would also work regardless of the aircraft and airspeed you're travelling with.

 

as far as im concerned, noting the time on the map is more the way to go....obviously still using your flight plan, but more of your navigating time is spent looking at the map, so its right there for reference.

 

this should be the same regardless of a 50 mile journey or a 500 mile journey...

 

sorry, but my 2 cents.

 

liz

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I think some of the things being described exceed the facilities available in simple recreational aircraft. If you had an autopilot and a closed cabin, then you might fold out a "chart table", get your, calculator, dividers and protractor and replan your route during flight, but how many of us are really going to be able to do that?

 

With an open cockpit, my map is in a heavy plastic waterproof map pouch and thus I'm not going to be writing or drawing on it in flight. It is more useful to have distance marks on it, although I take the point that time markings, in addition, may be of some benefit over featureless terrain. My flight plan is on an A5 sheet on my knee-board, so that's where my planned and actual times and fuel are located.

 

Unless it's really smooth flying, I'm not going to be flying hands-off, so I've only one hand and a brain to do any re-planning. It's necessarily going to be by dead reckoning.

 

I certainly don't fly for 15 or 20 minutes without checking if I'm laterally off-track or where I am with respect to map features. To do so would risk misidentifying a similar looking feature. You must know where you are at all times. If you just think you know where you are, you're lost, but haven't realised it yet!

 

On my last training Nav to test lost procedures, I had no plan and no tracks marked, just a WAC, because I did not know where we were going to go or for how long (yes, I did check with the instructor that I had enough fuel, for what he planned). We then flew out over a wide expanse of farm land that looks pretty much the same, at 300 feet AGL and I was instructed to "go over there", "turn that way" etc., for a while. During this time, we'd also been chatting about various things and I kept a mental note of where we were on the map based on compass heading. Then I was asked to fly to a particular town, which was not able to be seen from that point (indeed, the town in question is a silo and two farms in amongst some trees). So I had to know where I was, and how to track to the town from there. After arriving at the town, I was asked to fly to a particular AD, which at that height was over the horizon and there were no local features to use to assist in confirming track. Without being too long winded, I used a portion of the lost procedures, in addition to flying the estimated track and when in sight of the AD, we turned for the home AD.

 

All this was done with no tracks or marks on the map, which is what you would be doing if you had to divert before arriving at a planned waypoint.

 

So I guess you don't really need marks on the track at all, but they do make it easier. :)

 

 

[farri]

I think some of the things being described exceed the facilities available in simple recreational aircraft. :)

Absolutely,No doubt at all.

 

Frank.

 

 

[flying dog]

Wow,

 

GUYS!

 

CHILL OUT!

 

Step back....

 

Count to ten...

 

Take a few more breaths....

 

Calm down - please.

 

;)

 

We all have our methods and yes, some are more "problematic" than others.

 

Sure, if we stepped back and looked, we could pick holes in just about ALL ways.

 

That is good and it is bad.

 

Trying to remember some of the (cough) rules I was told when flying an ULTRA-LIGHT.

 

Wheels down...... Um, I hope so. It isn't a retractable.

 

Mixture....... There isn't any adjustment.

 

I have my own "system" and though it may not be prefect, there are enough "fail safes" built in, that I can say it is pretty good.

 

Sure there are those things I don't know. I accept those and hope to learn of them and how they control my flights at some stage.

 

But it takes time, practice and an open mind to learn things and do them without thinking.

 

My flight plans I make on my spreadsheet - I'll have to upload the newer version one day too! - shows you a lot of detail to help prevent/minimise you running out of fuel because of excess winds.

 

Throughout the flight it tells you how much fuel you should have at each point and if there is a large discrepancy, I start heading for the nearest airfield.

 

Let's all hope that all of our flying is enjoyable, safe and legal.

 

 

 

[ahlocks]

Psst!! CiFi....I understand what you mean...