Fix to fix

ian said:
To my knowledge, performing a fix to fix is actually technically illegal these days......you did the right thing
Click to expand...
You fail.
I emailed an IP-bud of mine at AIS about a year ago, asking this very question.
I do not have access to it right now, but the bottom line is that it is still legal and valid.
Plus, it paints a better picture of what you're doing than burying your head down on some keyboard.

For all you FMS guru's out there: screw you!! Fix-to-fix will never die!! BWAAA HHAAAAAAA HAAAAAA!!!!
 
Qutch said:
To: Hacker 15e - No exageration at all. The technique was faster than a computer because it took less time to perform the maneuver than it would take to program the coordinates into a computer. Demonstrations were given performing multiple fix-to-fixes that were so tight (close together) that the fix was crossed while still in a tight turn, followed by another fix, also hit while still in a turn, just to demonstrate the speed of the technique. Competing pilot/nav/computer teams could not compete with that. The demos were performed at multiple bases precisely because pilots did not believe it. You had to see it to believe it. No math. No geometry. No headings to establish. The Downside - almost impossible to teach to "experienced" IP's who were already indoctrinated to the "pencil method" and were looking for a "heading" to fly. UPT students picked up the technique in about an hour from the tiny group of Moody AFB trained IPs, and went on to smoke their regular IPs. But it was impossible to teach it to their IPs. That was one of the reasons it was never implemented - too hard to break IPs into the new way of thinking, without numbers, without angles or headings. And that's why the Institute for Defense Analyses, included it in the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. It was something to see a lone pilot wind thru an obstacle-course of 10 close-proximity fix-to-fixes at 300 knots, in 3 minutes, without the aid of any computer or a navigator. I understand your skepticism, but that's why its in that book. It wasn't just another technique. It was pretty advanced.
Click to expand...

Well, how about a primer on how to do it then?

Not that it matters, since even the Phase III SUPT kids are flying a jet that can go GPS-direct to any ICAO fix, and TACAN fix-to-fix (quite sadly -- I'm with you on this one, Huggy) isn't even part of the syllabus anymore. But, I'm curious to know, now.
 
HuggyU2 said:
For all you FMS guru's out there: screw you!! Fix-to-fix will never die!! BWAAA HHAAAAAAA HAAAAAA!!!!
Click to expand...

+1

But, I've gotta admit...guys who have only grown up in a G-1000 and FMS world have it eeeeeeaaaaaasssssssy. Sure is nice to set up the cockpit for an instrument approach with three keystrokes, rather than flipping through approach plates, setting multiple freqs (T.I.M., of course...), and dialing in courses. Even a caveman could do it.
 
Hacker15e said:
Well, how about a primer on how to do it then?

Not that it matters, since even the Phase III SUPT kids are flying a jet that can go GPS-direct to any ICAO fix, and TACAN fix-to-fix (quite sadly -- I'm with you on this one, Huggy) isn't even part of the syllabus anymore. But, I'm curious to know, now.
Click to expand...
Shoot I would even be interested in this pencil method you all speak off.
 
To HuggyU2 - I agree that manual fix-to-fix is useful, which is why the AF, and I think Navy, still teach it at UPT. The military is (and was in the 70s) well aware that technology can do the calculations for the pilot. We taught it anyway 1) to develop genuine positional awareness in the pilot 2) as part of the assignment selection process to identify student pilots who could juggle the cockpit demands of a fighter after graduation 3) as part of the hurdle used in the weeding-out washout process. I feared the fix-to-fix just like everybody. And calling for radar vectors, or faking a gyro-out emergency was not unheard of among pilots who just could not deal with a fix-to-fix prior to entering holding and penetration. Getting "schwacked in debrief for requesting vectors" happened then, just like now apparently. T38 Pilots were/are expected to do them without technological help.

To: Old Skool AMG : The link provided above in the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors does not adequately explain the study or the technique. What happened was that Randolph AFB (UPT HQ) became aware of a couple of rogue Moody AFB IPs that had abandoned the approved AFM 51-37 procedure (pencil method), and could outperform any pilot/navigator team (or computer aid) that challenged them. More importantly, they were teaching it to students, who then smoked their IP's. Navigator training at Mather AFB in CA got interested in it too. Watching the technique performed was like watching a speed reader read entire pages at one time, or like watching an idiot savant perform impossibly complex calculations instantly. The pilots would take one look at the HSI, then spin the plane around and nail the fix, even if the fix was so close that the fix would be crossed during the turn. There was no rational or conventional way to explain it. The Moody IP's were sent by HQ to the Human Rsources Lab (Willaims AFB) in Phoenix Arizona to let Human Factors scientists try to figure out how these guys were doing it. That's what triggered the study. Students who learned the technique could not explain to other students how they were doing it, and the technique could not be defined as a "procedure". The study conclusion: (which is not adequately explained in the above link) was that "experienced" pilots eventually develop senses that go beyond the procedures that they are taught, and they find difficult to explain to students. One of those senses is called "temporal perception" (the same ability an NFL receiver uses to navigate thru a field of moving defenders and catch a moving ball. A pretty impressive and complex navigation calculation.) The study determined that these idiot savant Moody AFB IPs had somehow learned how to tap into that ability while navigating on an HSI, they'd perfected it to an extreme degree, and they'd learned how to trigger that ability in their students within an hour. The downside was, experienced IP's were too ingrained in procedures, math, and looking for a heading to fly, to loosen up and learn how to explain navigation by "senses". It took an IP specially trained, to teach without procedures. Easy for open-minded and compliant students to absorb, not so easy for by-the-book rated pilots. Some could. But most couldn't let go of looking for a procedure or a heading. So as far as I know, there are only as few pilots out there who know how to demonstrate it or teach it. And no computer can beat them in a head to head match up.
 
Qutch said:
So as far as I know, there are only as few pilots out there who know how to demonstrate it or teach it. And no computer can beat them in a head to head match up.
Click to expand...

So, you personally don't know how to do this?
 
To: Poser 765 The pencil method is a slang expression, commonly adopted, used to describe a crude geometric technique 1) pulling the pencil out of your flight suit 2) Placing the shaft up against the HSI -using it as a straight-edge 3) Visualizing the HSI bezel as a map of your situation 4) Placing the pencil shaft up to the HSI to represent your desired course. It was crude, but widely used. Another downside was that, while leaning over the stick towards the HSI in a T-38, inexperienced students had a tendency to push the stick forward, go nose down, build up airspeed, get off altitude, etc. etc., and then the IP yelling would start. One of the painful experiences related to fix-to-fix at UPT. See page 137 & 138 http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN11-248.pdf see page 48 http://www.t6driver.com/pit/iptechniques.pdf

http://www.t37sim.com/fixtofix/fix_to_fix.htm
 
HuggyU2 said:
For all you FMS guru's out there: screw you!! Fix-to-fix will never die!! BWAAA HHAAAAAAA HAAAAAA!!!!
Click to expand...

Pretty soon, it's going to be "once back in the day, I was flying this approach type known as an ILS, or Instrument Landing System...."
 
MikeD said:
Pretty soon, it's going to be "once back in the day, I was flying this approach type known as an ILS, or Instrument Landing System...."
Click to expand...

I flew my very first GPS approach less than a month ago. I'm trying to hold out, but they're making me do this modern stuff!
 
Qutch said:
To: Poser 765 The pencil method is a slang expression, commonly adopted, used to describe a crude geometric technique 1) pulling the pencil out of your flight suit 2) Placing the shaft up against the HSI -using it as a straight-edge 3) Visualizing the HSI bezel as a map of your situation 4) Placing the pencil shaft up to the HSI to represent your desired course. It was crude, but widely used. Another downside was that, while leaning over the stick towards the HSI in a T-38, inexperienced students had a tendency to push the stick forward, go nose down, build up airspeed, get off altitude, etc. etc., and then the IP yelling would start. One of the painful experiences related to fix-to-fix at UPT. See page 137 & 138 http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFMAN11-248.pdf see page 48 http://www.t6driver.com/pit/iptechniques.pdf

http://www.t37sim.com/fixtofix/fix_to_fix.htm
Click to expand...
mind blowing...thanks.
 
Hacker15e said:
Well, how about a primer on how to do it then? .....So, you personally don't know how to do this?

I'm a newbie to the site. I was drawn to this forum by the navigation discussion and mhcasey's question that started it. I'm guessing that too much detail, beyond the "pencil method" links I provided above might be unwelcome here by the forum moderator. Many of the questions and comments here are similar to comments I heard thru the 70s and 80s. Not 'how to perform a fix-to-fix', but 'how to avoid doing them if possible'. But you can contact me at qutch1234567@hotmail.com if you want extensive details. And yes, I know the technique. I taught it at Moody AFB in the mid 70s before ATC HQ decided they wanted it isolated in the Arizona Human Resorces Lab at Williams AFB. It gained a following, started some controversey since it wasn't the approved AFM or Stan Eval approved method. AF UPT was worried it might go viral, with unintended consequences. So it's a dying art, like doing complex math in your head without the aid of a calculator, or memorizing lists of all the telephone numbers you use instead of relying on your cell phone memory card. Practically everything is now an iPhone App, so no one is interested in retaining raw mental abilities. IPs who used the Temporal fix-to-fix technique looked like Dustin Hoffman in the movie Rain Man, savants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCvYKiNW4vQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGqZOU6iz7A&feature=related (The Travolta movie Phenomenon also addresses the subject) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfyTSjsBSXQ&feature=related Amazing, watching pilots wind their way through a maze of multiple short range fixes, or afterburner thru a series of longer range fixes without sweating it. 3 Dimensional, back to back, climbing and descending fix-to-fixes so short they were completed in the arc of the turns and during altitude changes. Acrobatics on instruments. Well beyond what a pilot using a computer can do. I always thought it was a shame that the technique was quaranteened to the laboratory, HQ brass, and pyscho-babble forums for scientists. (like the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors linked above). It reduced the need for reliance on expensive avionics. Savant-like navigational abilities were triggered in ordinary students with a short instructional session. It became a scientific curiousity for a while, with the few IPs who knew how to do it being used as Air Force lab rats for study, instead of teaching.

I'll do a primer as you requested, in this forum, if its permitted. If poser765 and you want to know how it works, you can also contact me directly. I'll set you up with a fix-to-fix practice program that will help you perfect the technique (or the AF approved pencil method). When I left the AF they told me the technique was Classified, but since I see its showing up in books and on the internet now, I guess its out of the Arizona Lab they locked it in.
Click to expand...
 
So far I can't imagine a reason that Doug would object to letting you post the technique. Am I missing something???
 
SteveC said:
So far I can't imagine a reason that Doug would object to letting you post the technique. Am I missing something???
Click to expand...

No. I'm just new to forums and don't want to break the rules or abuse the space. Most of the comments have been directed towards the legality or necessity of doing fix-to-fix. Only hacker15e and poser765 expressed an interest in examining a fix-to-fix method, and I didn't want to get too carried away with this if I'm off subject. But as long as its OK, I'll try to explain a little more.

Thanks.
 
Qutch said:
I'm guessing that too much detail, beyond the "pencil method" links I provided above might be unwelcome here by the forum moderator.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite -- such technical discussion is encouraged. I'm certainly interested in hearing it in every detail.

Qutch said:
When I left the AF they told me the technique was Classified
Click to expand...

Well, that is certainly a first. Dunno why a technique of finding a fix on a radio NAVAID would ever fall within the realm of information that needed to be protected by classification, especially in the 1970s and after when combat aircraft would be navigating 'across the fence' without the use of radio NAVAIDs (with INSs and the like).
 
Hacker15e said:
Dunno why a technique of finding a fix on a radio NAVAID would ever fall within the realm of information that needed to be protected by classification, especially in the 1970s and after when combat aircraft would be navigating 'across the fence' without the use of radio NAVAIDs (with INSs and the like).
Click to expand...

Well, Hacker... it looks like YOU need to get back into the vault and revisit some of the high-end T-37 & T-38 3-1 and 3-3 manuals. Haven't you heard of "operations in the electromagnetically degraded environment"?? Well... fix-to-fix, eh??? Duh!!!
 
HuggyU2 said:
Well, Hacker... it looks like YOU need to get back into the vault and revisit some of the high-end T-37 & T-38 3-1 and 3-3 manuals. Haven't you heard of "operations in the electromagnetically degraded environment"?? Well... fix-to-fix, eh??? Duh!!!
Click to expand...

Noted. I will go choke myself now for not spending enough time in the vault at Vance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top