one in sixty rule

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I must confess I know nothing of the RAA sylabus, but am a big believer in the KISS principle!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And around we go again.

 

The 1 in 60 is a syllabus requirement, while it may not say the words, a technique still needs to be taught for regaining course. Unfortunately 'point the plane where you wanna go' doesn't cut it.

 

It's required for ppl and the cpl nav exam is practically ALL on the 1 in 60.

 

What on earth is being taught if not the 1 in 60? I'm afraid to be the bringer of bad news

 

But the dumbed down version of flying that was once acceptable and practical is no longer appropriate for raw pilots. If I hear another person infeer ' it's only raa' I'll scream!!!!

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Hi Merv, just to clear up I wasn't suggesting not adhering to the syllabus, just trying to offer some practical alternatives. As I said in an earlier post I don't know what the RAA syllabus entails.

 

What on earth is being taught if not the 1 in 60?

What about drift lines? Double track method? Are these acceptable methods of track correction, or is the 1 in 60 the only option?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just to make it a little clearer, you use the 1 in 60 to get back on track.

 

That is when your reference points on the ground aren't making sense when compared to the track marked on your map.

 

In fact you are temporarily lost.

 

Then when you can get a ground reference that you can also find on the map, you can estimate how far you are off track.

 

There's plenty of country in Australia where you may only get the one shot at it, and if you don't know how to do it all you can do is a precautionary landing or hope you don't run out of fuel, two alternative that are going to give you a lot more grief than knuckling down and doping a couple of hours of theory.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Out of interest I have just read through the RAA syllabus regarding Navigation...

 

Note: While the use of a map plotter is acceptable, students should be taught to employ mental dead reckoning and proportional techniques to solve in flight navigational problems.Source: RA Aus Operations Manual - Syllabus of Navigation, section 1.1.7

I would take 'proportional techniques' to include methods other than the 1 in 60 rule. While the 1 in 60 is probably easiest for most, I don't subscribe to the theory that there are not other ways of achieving the same result. It's not so much about 'dumbing down' but tailoring training to suit the individual, after all we are not all wired the same and for some mental arithmetic is not a strong point.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Just to make it a little clearer, you use the 1 in 60 to get back on track.That is when your reference points on the ground aren't making sense when compared to the track marked on your map.

In fact you are temporarily lost.

You can only use a 1 in 60 to get back on track if you know how far off track you are, to do this you need a positive fix (on your map), or have I forgotten too much.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It is?If 1 in 60's aren't your thing, why not just look out the window and point the aeroplane where you want to go? Compare your present position with what you are seeing on the map and adjust accordingly!:thumb_up:

You'e not going back to this though are you, because this is before the stage you'd need to find your position.

 

We all have little experiences which make us more cautious after than we were before.

 

One of mine was indentifying three items after a mandatory Navex turning point - a rail line, a lake and a hill to the right of the lake - should have been a sure fire thing except after a couple of minutes all I could see on track was scrub. I did use a "proportional technique" by doubling back, finding the rail line and dropping down to read the name of the station under its verandah, but it taught me the importance of having back up theory.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Not sure that a 180 counts as a 'proportional technique', but it is nonetheless an important tool in the effort not to get lost.

 

All track correction techniques have one element in common, you need to know how far you are off track in order to calculate (or guesstimate) how to get back on track.

 

You'e not going back to this though are you, because this is before the stage you'd need to find your position.

Are you saying that by constantly looking out the window and cross checking with your map that you get lost? It's the reverse that will get you lost! The earlier that you recgnise that you are off track, the easier it is to do something about it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are you saying that by constantly looking out the window and cross checking with your map that you get lost? It's the reverse that will get you lost! The earlier that you recgnise that you are off track, the easier it is to do something about it.

No I'm not saying that, and I agree with the rest of it because doing that you are less likely to get lost.

 

What happened to me was that there was a spur line which I hadn't noticed, so from the distance I hit the rail line, and quickly saw the lake and the hill to it's right.

 

Unfortunately for me that day the second line was further along and is also had a lake and a hill to the right.

 

It was after that point that I needed to get back on track and I'm referring only to the segment of the flight after that point.

 

In other words despite your best efforts looking out the window and cross checking with your map you've stuffed it, and for the moment you can't find a match, but you do see a town with a N-S rail line a lake (triangular with an island in the middle on which is perched a WW2 Catalina which is notated on the map. You can't from here recognise any landmarks on your original track.

 

Now what do you do?

 

 

[farri]

If I hear another person infeer ' it's only raa' I'll scream!!!!

Now! Now! Motz!!!!..... Not much point!... None of us will hear you scream!!!

 

Frank.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Dont forget your watch : Time = Distance

 

 

[Guernsey]

Well Guys and Gals, hasn't this been a fantastic thread' this is what the forum is all about'

 

When the tread is finally finished I believe our industrious Site Provider should print it all in a booklet entitled 'The one in sixty rule' .:clap2:

 

If only one in sixty readers benefit it would have been worthwhile.

 

Thanks for all your contributions.

 

Alan marriette.

 

 

[djpacro]

Now! Now! Motz!!!!..... Not much point!... None of us will hear you scream!!! Frank.

Motz, take a Bex, have a good rest and call me in the morning.

[motzartmerv]

Oh, I can garuntee u will hear me scream. Hehe.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you don't have an autopilot or a "copilot" and especially if you are in an open cockpit aircraft, your facilities are rudimentary. You therefore have to be better organised. One in Sixty is a gradient (or angle) that equals one degree. We POINT in degrees. The width of your finger is 10 miles on a WAC chart.(Distance) If you have a groundspeed of 60 knots you do a mile a minute. (SPEED)If you have a groundspeed of 90 knots you do one and a half miles a minute and so on. These are the SIMPLE things that you work from. When you are airborne your brain works much less efficiently than when you are at a desk flight planning. so you DO have to keep it simple. You won't get lost by rounding out to the nearest 5-10 knots. You will get lost by applying drift or variation etc in the wrong sense.or using a distance as a track (it happens).OR misidentifying a FIX, ( pinpoint, how I hate that term).. If you are not sure of it don't use it. My rule...To be roughly right is better than being wrong to the second decimal place.. Keep the logic in your navigation. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

No WONDER we were always so late getting in to Melbourne in the old TAA 727 days, Facthunter was up the front flying all over Australia using his finger to measure on the WAC Charts.

 

 

[facthunter]

Nah.. Doesn't work. I think the RNC's use a different scale. Nev.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Facthunter was up the front flying all over Australia using his finger to measure on the WAC Charts.

Probably more accurate than the new fangled INS they had on board!:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guernsey]

Melbourne traffic this is Morgan Sierra 7807 five fingers from the field at 2000 and inbound...................

 

Alan Marriette.

 

 

[Mazda]

So true Facthunter. In some aircraft it is virtually impossible to measure charts with a ruler - and where do you put the ruler anyway? (Be careful what you say to that ...)

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't believe you can prescribe a system that explicitly works for everyone. (one size fits all). If the Student? has a system that incorporates the fundamentals and doesn't have any traps/errors in it , within reason let it go at that. There is a fair bit of room for an individual approach. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

pinpoint.........you'll be in trouble

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't tell anyone CFI, I can, but didn't to read what Facthunter said? Next he'll have you branded as a Multi-BILLIONAIRE!

 

 

[facthunter]

No, you can have your pinpoint and I can have my "fix". We are both OK.

 

You must be referring to the mineowners. Turbs They buy TV stations to tell you their views.

 

You are using some big words there CFI.. What about the literacy challenged students? Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Who uses radio aids? Hasn't GNSS made that obsolete? Nev.