I just used the wrong chart for this then - about an hour and a half editing for every minute!
Not doing it again
I also can't say Conington for some reason, but didn't realise at time, and keep saying deviation when I mean declination... I do speak about it in middle of vid.
Obviously no substation for Ground School with Instruction... Or using the correct 1:500,000 chart.
I can understand the preference for GPS/moving map, they reduce pilot workload. Using an E6-B whilst flying would be a right PITA. Also with a Chart, you really have to keep "thumbing" or have some really good tick off features especially near airspaces. Though we should deffo learn both - culture of low expectations if pilots are going to be useless without their smartphones too.
QSD wrote:1:250,000 has a lot more detail, but this is not always a benefit in flight - there is such a thing as too much detail making the overall situation less clear. “Not seeing the woods because of all the trees”.
I can see this as being logical. On the ground I love my orange explorers. But in the air, I suppose you are just looking for shapes not a small post in the ground somewhere.
Also can't disagree with this.
Rob P wrote:If you are selecting a map feature that isn't clear on the half-mill it is almost certainly not a wise choice.
I suppose it's what I started with. If I was leading a group outdoors I would pick a whooping great feature for them to nav by.
CT2K owner. YouTube: Stratotramp