VFR Flight Planning Tutorial | Route Planning

[@kurtreber9813]

This is the easy part. It's all the weather-related calcs and airspeed calcs that get me. Takes me hours

[@ScottKoonCFI]

They do get easier and faster. One thing I mention to my students (perhaps you are already doing it) is to make the course as straight as possible. The direction changes you make, the more calculations you have to do. In many parts of the country, using a straight line course means you can cut down significantly on the number of times you have to recalculate wind corrections and ground speed. Thank you for the comment!!

[@kurtreber9813]

@@ScottKoonCFI yes that would make it even harder, thanks. I guess the days of VOR-hopping are over.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Hello Kurt. I guess I should have asked this earlier… Are you studying/flying Instruments or working on your Private Pilot certificate? If you are working on/refreshing an Instrument rating, then ignore the rest of this answer. You need to use VOR or RNAV navigation as part of your Instrument training. However, for VFR navigation, Electronic Navigation tools are thought to be secondary… I wouldn’t say the days of VOR hopping are over, but for low-altitude navigation, they are getting harder. Since 2016, the FAA has been implementing the VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON). As the FAA puts it… “as part of a NAS Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative, the number of conventional NAVAIDs would be reduced while more efficient Area Navigation (RNAV) routes and procedures are implemented throughout the NAS”. The AIM Section 1-1-3, subsection “f” describes it in much more detail. Plus, for private pilot candidates, the emphasis is on learning to use Pilotage and dead reckoning. In fact, the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (pp. 16-22) states “Although precision in navigation is obtainable through the proper use of this equipment, beginning pilots should use this equipment to supplement navigation by visual reference to the ground (pilotage).” So, it appears the FAA is focusing on Pilotage/Dead Reckoning and RNAV navigation while slowly de-emphasizing DME, ADF, and VOR navigation. And, like everything in Aviation, there are trade-offs. Going from VOR to VOR might mean less chance of getting lost, but it means there will be more course changes and the number of calculations will be greater. While flying straight line Pilotage has fewer calculations, it might be more difficult due to lack of available ground references. As PIC the choice is yours, but Area of Operation VI, tasks A and B indicate you’ll need to demonstrate both for a check ride. Having said all that, a knowledgeable local Flight Instructor is the best resource for determining where you are in your training and how to navigate in your area. If they are saying use VOR navigation, that is what I would do. I hope this helps at least a little bit. Good luck with your flying! Thank you for the comments! Please keep them coming!

[@goonbreathfpv]

I love this video but I did get a little worried half way though the back story. I thought the fan wanted to follow in their heroes footsteps

[@ScottKoonCFI]

I’m glad you liked the video! LOL, nope, not follow in his footsteps.

[@user-jh5fm7ci6o]

I am getting ready for my checkride, and I like the advise about putting the first 2 or 3 check points close to my departure airport. Great idea. thanks

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Glad it was helpful. Best of luck on your check ride! Thanks for the comment.

[@bbwxqx]

I know this is a video about pilotage but I always found it helpful to find a radial from close by VORs that intersected my chosen checkpoint to confirm where I was. On occasion I used the intersection from two radials from two VORs as a checkpoint. Of course this was before GPS and foreflight. Being able to actually confirm you arrived at the correct checkpoint was not only comforting but aided in situational awareness.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Excellent! Absolutely! Prior to GPS, I used to do the same thing. Sometimes on long cross country flights I still use VOR triangulation to locate my position because it is cool (in a nerdy way) and to make sure I can still do it. Thanks for the comment and safe flying!

[@ericcampman5382]

I'm in the process of getting my PPL and happened upon your videos, love the straightforward concise approach. Also, never in my life had I ever even thought about visiting Clear Lake or the Surf Ballroom.....until now :) Keep up the great work.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Awesome! Thank you!! Thanks for the comment!

[@user-yj7dk1cx3n]

Your videos have been a great help in providing understanding how to more easily plan flights. Thank you! Using the image views from various mapping sites available these days I think is a great idea. I'm hoping that X Plane and MSFS202 provide views from altitude of at least some of the lakes and larger towns. 😊 In "finger flying" does Foreflight or other electronic apps have the ability to mark the 10-20 mile waypoint segments on sectionals as you suggest and do it to-scale?

[@user-yj7dk1cx3n]

I just saw another video in which a user was using ForeFlight very much like using a paper map and highlighters. For now I'll use the plotter. I'll find some expired maps for practice.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you! The short answer to your foreflight question is “yes”. By placing your finger on a map point, you can make a waypoint and make it part of your flight plan. It will be on the map and “to scale”. My students do it all the time. I let them do the mapping and plotting in Foreflight. However, I do make them do the wind correction, ground speed, time to station, fuel use and other performance calculations by hand so they understand how to do them. Once they understand the process, I’ll let them use foreflight to do the calculations so they know how to do that, too. As we get closer to the check ride, we go back and forth to ensure they still understand the calculations and can answer questions they might be asked. I hope that is helpful. Best of luck and let us know how your training is going!! Thanks for sharing your comments and questions!

[@nil9618]

Good job! I hope to see more of this series to come.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you! Glad you liked it. Please feel free to suggest specific topics you think might be helpful.

[@thepapopa1344]

Great job! Would love to for you to do a video on weather minimums ! And other weather related videos! I struggle with weather concepts

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you! I already have a video on cloud clearances and airspace planned. I will definitely add some other weather topics to the list. Thank you so much for the suggestion!

[@Rodhern]

I am European which make me take note of some 'unusual' corners of the topic. I see you (USA) have a common classification into LIFR (Low IFR), IFR (as in non-low), MVFR (Marginal VFR) and VFR (as in non-marginal). The boundary from LIFR to IFR is approximately when it becomes possible to get a Special VFR clearance (500' / 1 SM), the boundary from IFR to MVFR is approximately the required condition for daytime take-off and landing in controlled airspace (1000' / 3 SM), and the last boundary is that non-marginal VFR means ceiling better than 3000' and visibility better than 5 SM. I find that last one quite interesting; you can have Scattered 800' AGL in "non-marginal VFR" whereas 5 SM visibility will automatically make it marginal VFR. I feel that SCT 008 is probably "lower"/"worse" than 5 SM visibility (I will admit that comparing cloud cover to visibility is a bit of a weird discipline) - how do you feel?

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Sorry it took me a few days to see your comment. You are right, this is a bit confusing. Here in the US, the terms you note: LIFR, IFR, MVFR, and VFR are category terms generally describing ceiling and visibility conditions regardless of airspace-a “quick reference” if you will. They aren’t intended to be used by themselves to determine whether or not you can depart or fly under Visual Flight Rules. Further, they don’t include all cloud layers, only those layers forecast or reported as Broken or Overcast (the definition of ceiling). The criteria used to determine whether or not you can fly using Visual Flight Rules is actually defined in 14 CFR 91.155. This section defines the criteria based upon a combination of airspace, visibility, and clearance from clouds (all clouds). This “mixing of terms” can lead to some interesting situations. For example, say you have an area where the visibility is 2 Statute Miles, and the Ceiling is at 900 ft AGL. This area would be described/shown as IFR. BUT, if you are at an airport during the day within class G airspace such as Albany Municipal (K19), it is legal to take off and fly under Visual Flight Rules, since you only need 1 mile visibility and the ability to remain clear of clouds. All that said, I agree with you. A scattered layer at 800 ft AGL, could be worse than 5 SM visibility. Especially if the scattered layer is covering 5/10 of the sky and that 5/10 is right over your airport. Thank you for this observation and question! This was fascinating to consider, and has triggered a couple of ideas for another video! Thanks again!!

[@mikecoffee100]

Perfect Thank You

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you!

[@hmabboud]

You're the best, as usual :)

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thanks!!

[@jimallen8186]

Funneling and limiting features… Combine the two with Clock, Chart, Ground.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you for sharing!

[@ronniethepilot]

This was great Scott but are you able to do a video on filling out an actual vfr navigation log. Thanks I could sure use a good refresher. I know there are videos out there but it seems you explain things very well

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Ronnie, thanks for the request. I am working on two videos right now and will have at least one of them tie this all back to the VFR Navigation Log. The challenge isn’t really tying it back to the log… The challenge has been trying to do it without making the video 20 minutes long. There is more to come! Thanks again! And keep those suggestions coming!

[@ronniethepilot]

@@ScottKoonCFI cant wait to see looking forward to it thanks again for what you do

[@BillKocik]

Thanks for creating this. Question: Isn't ForeFlight actually giving you a magnetic heading adjusted for variation rather than a true course on the ground at 2:03?

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Hello! Thank you for pointing that out! You are correct. However, in this case they are the same. In this part of the United States, magnetic variation is 0 degrees. I described that during one take, but it appears I accidentally edited that out. I'll see if I can fix that. I actually have a picture of a plotter against the same course, showing the true course is ~219, but used the Foreflight image because it was cleaner and easier to read if people were viewing on a phone or other small screen. I'll rethink that choice for future videos. Here is a link to that image: drive.google.com/file/d/1CsnpCiiWgxofTPWwb4-K1p6WAHGwGnAp/view?usp=sharing Thank you, again!!

[@BillKocik]

@@ScottKoonCFI Ahh - thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. By the way, I just learned today that as of recently you can now set the ruler (and other directional instruments) to show true course instead of magnetic course if you like. It's under Settings -> Units/Time -> Bearing and Track Instruments.

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Perfect. I did not know that! Thank you for passing that along! I'll use that for next time!

[@dwighttaylor5107]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ScottKoonCFI]

Thank you!!