When planning a X-Country....

AngelFuree

AngelFuree

Well-Known Member
When planning a x-country, what do you guys consider to be an reasonable maximum distance between checkpoints?

Just wondering....as I usually have checkpoints of about 13nm or so...

Any suggestions (checkpoint distance wise) for a 250nm cross country?

(Of course, it does vary by location and course...e.g. if obstructions present...etc....but just a general idea)

Thanks.
 
I use 20-25nm as a good rule of thumb, especially if you're not familiar with the area. There's certainly nothing wrong with 13nm gaps, but you can save yourself a little bit of work by using something a little farther apart. As for maximum distance, I don't like to go past 35-40nm on a VFR flight without a checkpoint.
 
I usually have a "window" between 15 and 25nm, (depends on how good of a checkpoint I find).
 
I think checkpoints every 1.7 NM should be standard, with ETAs/ETEs and fuels computed for each.








/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think checkpoints every 1.7 NM should be standard, with ETAs/ETEs and fuels computed for each.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanna see that planning sheet! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think that 15-25 NM is fine. Actually, I'd say that use any distance you want, just as long as you don't get lost!
 
I'm with MikeD. You might as use 1.7 NM as your guide as 13 or 20.

Other than for purely instructional purposes, I try to avoid any "standardized" checkpointing. FWIW, my basic philosophy (different than some others') is that fixed checkpoints are primarily for timing for fuel usage, updating flight plans, and course changes.

They're not about knowing where you are or avoiding getting lost.

Looking out the window, comparing it with the chart, and knowing where you are and where you are going is primary for navigation.

***Begin minor rant***

In fact, I think that the insistence that CFIs put on closely spaced checkpoints is wrong on so many levels. We spend so much time looking for the next checkpoint that we actually lose track of where we are. We don't even see the interstate highway with the major shopping center two miles east of it because we're peering intently straight ahead to find that dried up lake that happened to fit at the 10-15 NM point that we are "supposed" to use for checkpoint spacing.

But the biggest reason that I think it's wrong is that unexplained closely-spaced checkpoints is the primary reason so many private pilots quit solid preflight planning altogether once they get their certificates. 10-20 NM checkpoints are so obviously ridiculous from a navigation and fuel management and groundspeed calculation standpoint that they come to think that all checkpoint planning is bogus. Which it's definitely not. Fly around the mountains of Colorado without a solid pilotage/dead reckoning plan and you may soon not be flying at all.

It would at least be helpful of CFIs would explain the =reason= for the short checkpoints: to learn a set of very necessary skills. Since, except for the long cross country, the PP cross countries are so short that, without multiple artificially-spaced checkpoints we'd never get a chance to calculate anything.

***End minor rant***

For =real= flight planning, what I actually do is this:

I begin my planning by choosing two checkpoints. The first is my "departure" checkpoint. It's 10± NM of the airport and ends the "departure" phase of my flight. It's the one I will fly to after takeoff, even if I get routed around the place for traffic, etc. It's the one to get me on course. I'll time that one, not so see if the calculations are correct, but to monitor fuel usage and have a starting point for later calculations.

The second one is my "arrival" checkpoint. It's a major unmistakable landmark 10-15 NM from the airport I'm going to. It's the one that will help me find the airport. ("Hmm. If I go over the middle of this lake and turn to a heading of 135, I will be pointed directly at the center of the airport")

The intermediary ones are chosen based on whether there are course changes taking place, the length of the trip, and the amount of fuel on board, with at least one being somewhere near the midpoint of the trip. They are very important from a time/fuel standpoint, so they are major and unmistakable.

For flying? The chart sits in front of me. The navigation log is put away except for those times I need to record information in it.
 
I used to do them every 10-15nm but that got really busy. I guess looking back at it, I am glad I did it for the first few XCs just b/c it got me in the habit of always looking outside and comparing the map to the sight. Now I put them every 35 or so. I am just always looking outside and comparing, not just at when I am "supposed to". I think after a while "checking" your course will become a constant, subcontious thing and checkpoints can pretty much be used just to estimate if you are getting your planned groundspeed, IMO.

Edit - Sorry, midlife pretty much just said the same thing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with MikeD. You might as use 1.7 NM as your guide as 13 or 20.

Other than for purely instructional purposes, I try to avoid any "standardized" checkpointing. FWIW, my basic philosophy (different than some others') is that fixed checkpoints are primarily for timing for fuel usage, updating flight plans, and course changes.

They're not about knowing where you are or avoiding getting lost.

Looking out the window, comparing it with the chart, and knowing where you are and where you are going is primary for navigation.



[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. My 1.7 NM suggestion being totally sarcastic; I see the same thing with some pilotage flight plans by students I've come across when they plan for VR-routes and the such; which are as the acronym means, "visual" routes. They're so worried about checkpoints along a straight course, when they should be concentrating on the actual navigating via clock/map/ground, or any combination thereof. Checkpoints, in addition to what you wrote about timing and fuels Midlife, are IMO mainly identifiers/helpers for major turn points on a route. You've still got to do the basic task of following ground references, terrain references and other "lead-in" features that keep you on course, rather than spending all the time looking for a nebulous checkpoint...again, especially during a relatively straight-line course. I also try to get guys to not always fly the "hard black-line route"; ie, on leg 3, the distinct L-shaped mountain range must be on my left side when I pass 13:20 on the route timing (if timing the route), or when I pass X point. Flying left or right of the black line and keeping mindful of where nav features might be along the route at that point in time, helps with overall positional as well as situational awareness, IMO, and makes for a less "canned" approach to pilotage. Checkpoints have their purpose, but are seemingly overused, IMO.
 
I place the first two fairly close together (about 10 nm). Then after that I shoot for 20-25 nm increments.

AngelFuree, where are you going on your xc?
 
Thanks a lot for the reply everyone. Very helpful =)

[ QUOTE ]
I place the first two fairly close together (about 10 nm). Then after that I shoot for 20-25 nm increments.

AngelFuree, where are you going on your xc?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going...
It's just the destination that my stage examiner has assigned me.
The guy assigned me to St. Paul Downtown...I have the oral portion tomorrow.
Mainly I was asking as to what was a good rule of thumb since I wouldn't want to screw the stage check up.

But boy am I behind! I certainly won't get done w/ the stage 34 by August 8th (the day I'm going back to NY).
I guess I'll just have to stay a week longer or so... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going...
It's just the destination that my stage examiner has assigned me.
The guy assigned me to St. Paul Downtown...I have the oral portion tomorrow.
Mainly I was asking as to what was a good rule of thumb since I wouldn't want to screw the stage check up.

But boy am I behind! I certainly won't get done w/ the stage 34 by August 8th (the day I'm going back to NY).
I guess I'll just have to stay a week longer or so... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this for your stage 28?

EDIT: Nevermind, I am being stupid this morning. I need more coffee. Good luck on the 28!
 
How often should GS be calculated? I found that on my short cross country with checkpoints spaced about 20 nm, GS calculations between two adjacent checkpoints are not worthwhile. The time travelled between them is not large enough to permit accuracy unless the seconds are precisely kept track of at the exact checkpoint. A 40 nm distance (compilation of a couple legs) for GS calculations would be more meaningful and manageable, I think. What do you guys think?
 
[ QUOTE ]
How often should GS be calculated? I found that on my short cross country with checkpoints spaced about 20 nm, GS calculations between two adjacent checkpoints are not worthwhile. The time travelled between them is not large enough to permit accuracy unless the seconds are precisely kept track of at the exact checkpoint. A 40 nm distance (compilation of a couple legs) for GS calculations would be more meaningful and manageable, I think. What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me answer the question with a simple question:

What's the reason for calculating groundspeed?

Your 60 NM cross country in a 172 will take about 45 minutes, including takeoff and landing. If you are at a halfway checkpoint 5 minutes late, based on your answer to the previous question, is there a reason to recalculate GS?
 
[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Nevermind, I am being stupid this morning. I need more coffee. Good luck on the 28!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah man, don't worry Jason....it's the CAFFEINE that has you that way... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I would NEVER teach a student to do a 250 mile cross country flight without backing it all up with some form of electronic navigation.

Not only is it unrealistic, it would be incredibly reckless to rely on dead reckoning and pilotage as your primary means of navigation in the "real world" (read : Post-private pilot training) of flying, assuming that you're equipped.

Know how to dead reckon, and know how to use pilotage - but know how to use VOR's, airways, NDB's and intersections such as well.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Let me answer the question with a simple question:

What's the reason for calculating groundspeed?

Your 60 NM cross country in a 172 will take about 45 minutes, including takeoff and landing. If you are at a halfway checkpoint 5 minutes late, based on your answer to the previous question, is there a reason to recalculate GS?

[/ QUOTE ]

(I was considering a general rule of thumb for when to do GS calculations, not specifically regarding any X-C). Once you can get a meaningful GS on such a short trip, the trip is just about over. But once you have your actual GS, you can calculate new ETA's, workload permitting. Why else would we care about groundspeed? The key is to not use GS calculations that are flawed due to distances and times that are too short for accuracy and as a result end up calculating new ETA's that are equally inaccurate. I am concerned about scenarios here when you are one minute early/late on a short leg and one minute is the smallest time unit you can effectively measure at a checkpoint. If you are 5 minutes late you know your GS is off since it is greater than the error range of around one minute; larger time discrepancies and longer legs are not affected as much (since I'm 6' 2" tall, maybe I'm immune).
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would NEVER teach a student to do a 250 mile cross country flight without backing it all up with some form of electronic navigation.

Not only is it unrealistic, it would be incredibly reckless to rely on dead reckoning and pilotage as your primary means of navigation in the "real world" (read : Post-private pilot training) of flying, assuming that you're equipped.

Know how to dead reckon, and know how to use pilotage - but know how to use VOR's, airways, NDB's and intersections such as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it's realistic. What about when you're inbound into China on a bombing run low-level (after we go to war with them), and GPS/VORs etc are all being jammed? Better be able to terrain follow! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Seriously speaking. A 250 NM XC could easily be broken up into a DR leg, a pilotage leg, and an electronic nav leg. For the non-electronic legs, the stud would have to know what the nearest navaids are and how to use them if necessary, just don't use them primarily; conversly on the nav leg, know what the points you're flying over are and the features below you in case the nav gear or the nav stations crap out. Some good combo training like this wouldn't be a bad way to go, IMHO. Lots of good (and related) training accomplished in one sortie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top