Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

By IWF
#1868777
Having just purchased my South of England 1:500 chart in preparation for starting my nav work , I’m wondering why I didn’t buy the 1:250. I’m not likely to be flying in any exam outside of 100 miles of Elstree and the greater scale would be give me more detail ( and more space on the chart) for drawing lines etc.

Accepting the different scale requires different measurement, why don’t we use 1:250 scale maps for Nav work for shorter flights ?

Cheers
StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1868778
Mostly because charts are now a back-up to electronic nav, the latter having the advantage of being able to present at a wide variety of scales. 1:250k used to be quite popular with the eggbeater fraternity.

For the exams 1:500k is all that's required. If you are selecting a map feature that isn't clear on the half-mill it is almost certainly not a wise choice.

Rob P
johnm, StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By QSD
#1868782
In my experience it is better to stick to one scale rather than changing between them. The best scale is probably the one that your instructor uses - it makes things harder if you are using something different.

I recommend the 1:500,000 scale to my students as representing the best compromise between the physical size of the chart and the amount of detail. The 1:500,000 has sufficient detail and is a convenient size to use in cockpit, especially when carefully folded.

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”.
StratoTramp liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868788
In those far off days when I used a paper chart ....... :)
I always found a 1:250 too clumsy. 1 :500 was a good compromise and for long journeys 1:1000
User avatar
By Micromouse
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1868827
IWF wrote:Having just purchased my South of England 1:500 chart in preparation for starting my nav work , I’m wondering why I didn’t buy the 1:250. I’m not likely to be flying in any exam outside of 100 miles of Elstree and the greater scale would be give me more detail ( and more space on the chart) for drawing lines etc.

Accepting the different scale requires different measurement, why don’t we use 1:250 scale maps for Nav work for shorter flights ?

Cheers

As a student at Elstree, and about to do my big XC nav, I can assure you that the 1:500000 is idea for the nav training you will do. After that there is SkyDemon with its variable views

Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By IWF
#1868869
Thanks all.

I’ll stick with the 1:500 then. I take the point that post ppl folk only use electronic plotters etc, so I won’t worry about yet another chart to buy.

@Micromouse good luck with your XC. Perhaps we can compare notes some time. EGTR is certainly an interesting location to fly circuits !
User avatar
By cotterpot
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1869134
I was given an A3 extract of a chart. (1996)
I suppose it was so that you couldn't add anything elsewhere that might assist you in the exam. :wink:
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1871387
I just used the wrong chart for this then - about an hour and a half editing for every minute! :eye: :cyclopsani: Not doing it again :lol:

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. :lol:

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.