[skydriller]

But too many folk just don't do that, do they? They just bang it in SD or other software and go.

I think you would be more likely to register a gliding site or drop zone by using SD rather than a cluttered chart. SD lists everything en-route that is a hazard to your journey - including glider and paradrop sites. I have more than once had SD pick up on a hazard proximity I had not noted while planning the route...

I have no idea what the pilot in question driving the cirrus used for flight planning, though the straightness of track indicates GPS-linked autopilot use. I wonder if a panel GPS was used and what kind of database it had - ie. if it wasnt an IFR setup that was abnormally being used VFR...

Regards, SD..

[Flyingfemme]

Good point. I always use SD as well as the old G1000 because the Garmin has a "limited" database. Can give the pax a shock, landing at a grass field the Garmin doesn't have in the database, when it starts shouting "pull up, pull up!".

[skydriller]

Can give the pax a shock, landing at a grass field the Garmin doesn't have in the database, when it starts shouting "pull up, pull up!".

Hey, at least it doesnt call you a "Retard!! Retard!!"...

[Flyin'Dutch']

I have no experience with the G1000 in a Cirrus but fairly extensive in one with the Avidyne suite and although the Moving Maps are deffo better in the latter versions it is not like flying with SkyDemon.

Pretty sure the Cirrus from this thread did not have SD running or the routing would have been better.

[lobstaboy]

But too many folk just don't do that, do they? They just bang it in SD or other software and go.

I think you would be more likely to register a gliding site or drop zone by using SD rather than a cluttered chart. SD lists everything en-route that is a hazard to your journey - including glider and paradrop sites...

I fully accept that SD is the dog's boxxxxks, OK?
But my point is much more to do with the mental attitude to planning the flight, rather than features of the tools.
I have seen too often folk just getting in and setting off, trusting the electronics to warn them of stuff en-route. The fact that it's so good tempts them to skip careful preflight planning.
Disciplined pilots will plan properly beforehand, using whatever they prefer - obviously that can include software like SD. The point is to do it.
(Doing that preflight planning on a paper chart works best IMHO, but that's the argument I think I've lost).

[patowalker]

How do you know folk just get in and set off, trusting the electronics to warn them of stuff en-route? They could have planned carefully on a large screen at home, only needing to open the route in the cockpit and set off.

[lobstaboy]

How do you know folk just get in and set off, trusting the electronics to warn them of stuff en-route? They could have planned carefully on a large screen at home, only needing to open the route in the cockpit and set off.

By sitting beside them in the air and watching them put the destination in five minutes after take off and then rubber banding the magenta line round obvious obstacles.
Meanwhile I'm doing the look out and noone is really flying the plane.
I know they don't know the route or the destination before hand because I just suggested it.
When this happens in an 'instructor hour' flight I write a strongly worded recommendation in the log book.

[Rob P]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this.

You are an instructor and you brief the route when airborne and are surprised they don't use a paper chart and whizz wheel

Rob P

[Flyin'Dutch']

How do you know folk just get in and set off, trusting the electronics to warn them of stuff en-route? They could have planned carefully on a large screen at home, only needing to open the route in the cockpit and set off.

By sitting beside them in the air and watching them put the destination in five minutes after take off and then rubber banding the magenta line round obvious obstacles.
Meanwhile I'm doing the look out and noone is really flying the plane.
I know they don't know the route or the destination before hand because I just suggested it.
When this happens in an 'instructor hour' flight I write a strongly worded recommendation in the log book.

Is that for a diversion or before take-off?

I am confused (easily done)

[TopCat]

But my point is much more to do with the mental attitude to planning the flight, rather than features of the tools.
I have seen too often folk just getting in and setting off, trusting the electronics to warn them of stuff en-route. The fact that it's so good tempts them to skip careful preflight planning.
Disciplined pilots will plan properly beforehand, using whatever they prefer - obviously that can include software like SD. The point is to do it.
(Doing that preflight planning on a paper chart works best IMHO, but that's the argument I think I've lost).

Until a few years ago, when they started inking CAS boundaries in on the half mill - so dark that they distracted from and often obscured the actual cartography, as well as actually obliterating details such as a lot of small lakes as I've moaned before, I would have agreed that the paper map was superior.

SD mapping is still woefully inadequate in that respect - I've frequently flown over or past a lake, discovered that SD doesn't have it at any scale, and worried for a moment that I wasn't where I thought I was.

But I no longer think that the paper map is better for planning. Sometimes I take a look at the map after getting the main points of the route on SD (PC version) but usually these days I don't. I still always check NOTAMs, weather and look along the route (and either side of it) for anything of note. And I certainly don't fly over winches.

Can you be more specific about what exactly someone with the right attitude will do, that someone with the wrong one doesn't do?

[skydriller]

By sitting beside them in the air and watching them put the destination in five minutes after take off and then rubber banding the magenta line round obvious obstacles.
Meanwhile I'm doing the look out and noone is really flying the plane.
I know they don't know the route or the destination before hand because I just suggested it.

Im trying to work out how a student can prepare a route you give them in the air. I flew "the hour" with my instructor the other day as it happens. My prep was to do a 50nm diameter Notam check on SD and bring the plates for the closest 3 aerodromes. I "know" this area as Ive flown here for 15 years, and can pick a rough heading to most places. If I was a student or doing "the hour" at a completely different location or country (Ive done this), if you didnt brief me before the flight, even though I would have done a local area Notam check and have looked over a local area map beforehand, we wouldnt be going anywhere unless you navigated.

Regards, SD..

[lobstaboy]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this.

You are an instructor and you brief the route when airborne and are surprised they don't use a paper chart and whizz wheel

Rob P

Sorry for the confusion. I better explain. I'm lucky enough to know people who enjoy having me along without it being an instructional flight. I was talking about that sort of flight mostly.

Of course if I'm teaching a navigation exercise it's Chinagraph and whizz wheel (actually no it isn't anymore - I'll come back to this later).
I have once or twice set off on a local instructor hour flight (as @skydriller says in a familiar area to us both) and found the pilot insisting on setting up the magenta line in flight when I've suggested we head off somewhere - can't seem to fly without it!

Sometimes I feel a bit like how I imagine a police officer must feel when swapping from a marked police car to an unmarked one - the way other road users behave, I mean. I see very different behaviour when I'm wearing my instructor hat, to other times. It does mean the list of folk I happily fly with for fun is getting shorter...

Navigation training can be done without paper charts now. What's important is to plan properly beforehand. We all know that. I wonder if the folk that disturb me were originally trained using paper and whizz wheel and now they've got software they don't realise they still need to plan. Hopefully folk being trained now to use software in planning will carry on using it once they qualify. So in time my problem will go away as eventually everyone will be using software and doing a decent amount of planning preflight because that's what they were trained to do.

[TopCat]

What's important is to plan properly beforehand. We all know that. I wonder if the folk that disturb me were originally trained using paper and whizz wheel and now they've got software they don't realise they still need to plan.

Ok, so what you're objecting to is just failure to plan adequately, irrespective of the tech used to do it?

No disagreement there.

I wonder if everyone that uses SD for checking NOTAMs realises that they have to do it while the device has an internet connection.

I planned a flight somewhere a few weeks ago, took off, didn't like the weather, so changed my mind about the destination. However I hadn't checked the NOTAMs for the completely different area, so I returned to base first, connected to the internet, and checked the NOTAMs for the new area.

[lobstaboy]

Ok, so what you're objecting to is just failure to plan adequately, irrespective of the tech used to do it?

Yes.

[Paul_Sengupta]

Can give the pax a shock, landing at a grass field the Garmin doesn't have in the database, when it starts shouting "pull up, pull up!".

It can be a bit odd on Sky Demon with the database as well though. I was landing at Cherbourg one day when it warned me of an "airfield ahead". Well, yes, I was landing there. It counted down, can't remember if it was the distance or height or both, until it said "Airfield ahead, zero ft below", or something like that, when I landed.