 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Learning / September 2008Sectional Charts
Do you know how to read one? Have you spent any time studying the legend on the face of the chart and the backside too? Have you ever looked at all the margin information? If not you are shorting yourself of a lot of information. US pilots in general do a poor job of being able to read an aeronautical chart and decipher the information printed. Sad but true. Is it your fault or of your CFI for not teaching you or demanding you learn to read aeronautical charts? Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe altitudes. Challenge? >Do you know how to read one? Have you spent any time studying the >legend on the face of the chart and the backside too? Have you ever >looked at all the margin information? If not you are shorting yourself >of a lot of information. I started to read them when I was 14 and an aviation nut. I knew every little symbol. Of course I forgot some by the time I started flying at 38, but I was way ahead of the game. Don Byrer KJ5KB Power & Glider Pilot Guy kj5kb-at-hotmail.com "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." "Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>" > Do you know how to read one? Have you spent any time studying the > legend on the face of the chart and the backside too? Have you ever [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > altitudes. > Challenge? I think, to a certain extent, it is due to the fact that the charts are badly designed. Obscure symbols are one thing. It can be fun to ask people what kind of airport that little grey circle represents out in the middle of the Olympic Mountains (it is the 'O' in Olympic, duh). But when most pilots cannot even decipher the direction or length of the runway from looking at the chart even after years of using the charts, I think there is something wrong with the chart. This is something I often see in BFRs. The problem, I think, is that the charts try to substitute for the A/FD, which they cannot because there is always something you need from the A/FD that is either not on the chart or so obscure or lost in clutter that you cannot readily find it. So pilots are left fumbling between chart and A/FD and their flight log and whatever else they have while trying to fly the airplane. They end up looking the airport up in the A/FD (or some commercial substitute) anyway, so the information on the chart is superfluous and simply becomes a "gotcha" for CFIs and examiners to use on their students. People forget that which they do not use frequently. It takes a motivated day VFR pilot to keep familiarizing himself with what all the different lights on Puget Sound lighthouses mean when he never sees them because he never flies at night. Personally, I am happy when a pilot can tell me the difference between a Restricted area and a MOA and can readily find the information he needs to know about them. It at least tells me he is paying some attention to it. I have met a lot of pilots who simply will not fly through the Seattle Class B air space because it is too hard for them to find the radio frequencies to get through there ("Ah, there it is, in that little corner there, or is that the freq for approaching from the north?"). Why do you think there is so much congestion in those little corridors between busy airports? It is because pilots cannot find the information they need to fly through the airspace, even when it is right in front of them. I think this is largely due to excessive information clutter on the charts. The things the pilots really need to know do not stand out, are often located on margins of the chart (or, as you note, on the back), and, unless you know exactly where to look, difficult to find even when they are right where they are supposed to be. Even a seasoned pilot sitting at a desk in the FBO will often have difficulty finding the correct frequency for Seattle Approach in all that clutter. Asking him to do it at night in turbulence while holding a flashlight in his teeth is a bit much.  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >The problem, I think, is that the charts try to substitute for the >A/FD, which they cannot because there is always something you need from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the chart is superfluous and simply becomes a "gotcha" for CFIs and >examiners to use on their students. I agree that charts can get quite cluttered in some areas (which is why they created TACs for class Bs). It's a balancing act for the chart folks. I don't think they're trying to be a substitute for the A/FD, though. The amount of airport info they put on a chart is there so that you can look at a chart and do some level of planning without having to look up every airport in the A/FD. For most airports, there is not enough information on the chart for me to be comfortable landing there without having a look at the A/FD or Flight Guide. While you can see the general direction of paved runways, you can't really tell what number they are. There's no info on pattern altitudes. No info on taxiways or parking. Ultimately, I'm going to have to look at more detailed airport info than is available on the chart. On the other hand, when planning or changing destinations enroute, the info on the chart is valuable. Particularly when I'm flying in an unfamiliar area. If a wall of thunderstorms develops ahead, I really don't want to have to look up every nearby airport in the A/FD to find a suitable alternate. The info on the chart helps to narrow things down. I do think the chart folks went too far when they started adding airport notations on runways that have right hand patterns. That is clearly info that you will find in the A/FD if you are going to takeoff or land at a particular airport. John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180) > I do think the chart folks went too far when they started adding airport > notations on runways that have right hand patterns. That is clearly info > that you will find in the A/FD if you are going to takeoff or land at a > particular airport. The same argument can be made to not include the frequencies and a LOT of the other text on sectionals. FWIW: I like the RP info. Hilton >> I do think the chart folks went too far when they started adding airport >> notations on runways that have right hand patterns. That is clearly info [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > FWIW: I like the RP info. Where I fly, we have a right pattern for gliders and ultralights but a left pattern for everybody else. This is denoted on the chart as "RP*", with a teeny little star. Every so often we see regular powered aircraft come in on a right pattern. I can't say for sure, but I speculate that it's because they see the RP but either don't see the * or don't know what it means. I have no opinion on the use of RP in general, but in this particular case it seems that the RP* should either be expanded upon or removed. Not a big deal though, just an observation. SignatureMike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon To me that doesn't make sense to be splitting the traffic to RH and LH. Personally, I would think that traffic should be moving all the same direction so everyone knows where everyone is... regardless of speed. I mean, what is the difference between a Citation X and a Cessna 152 when it comes to the pattern? Obviously...Speed! Wider downwind, Longer base and, like at Oskosh, a little waggle in the pattern to stay in line. And Maybe it all comes back to how everyone uses the radio to know how to compensate for the different speeds for everyone to ..."Get along" when using the pattern. I guess these are just the first thoughts that come to mind. CB ~ >>> I do think the chart folks went too far when they started adding airport >>> notations on runways that have right hand patterns. That is clearly info [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >it seems that the RP* should either be expanded upon or removed. Not a big >deal though, just an observation. > To me that doesn't make sense to be splitting the traffic to RH and > LH. Personally, I would think that traffic should be moving all the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - CB If you have more than one runway the traffic flows are usually opposite R vs L to avoid "contact sports". We have a wide mix of speeds at our airport with civilian/military and the military guys often use a different pattern. Mix that up with helicopters and fixed wing, it gets hectic sometimes. We are the 3rd busiest airport in the state and only have one runway with no taxiway! (Our parallel taxiway is in process of being built after intense pressure on our politicos) I'm not concerned about being #7 in the pattern but it does cause problems with a first solo student and trying to maintain safe separation for all. Our FBO is at mid-field and the school is at the east end of the airport. We all manage to get along even with the G-4's, the Citations, the CASA 232's, the NAVY T-6 and 34's with a mix of rotorcraft. Fly Safe Ol S&B All points well taken! It does make a difference when you have multiple runways for sure. I'm thinking that, before the remodel a few years back, Des Moines Intl. had a GA parallel runway that pretty much had the same situation with opposite traffic as the commercial which seemed to work like a charm. Thanks for the info! CB ~ >> To me that doesn't make sense to be splitting the traffic to RH and >> LH. Personally, I would think that traffic should be moving all the [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >Fly Safe >Ol S&B > US pilots in general do a poor job of being able to read an > aeronautical chart and decipher the information printed. Do you have citations for any studies or surveys that provide empirical support for that assertion? > > US pilots in general do a poor job of being able to read an > > aeronautical chart and decipher the information printed. > > Do you have citations for any studies or surveys that provide empirical > support for that assertion? Jim No ... Its an observation from 50+ years of flying with some pretty dumb pilots who think all they have to do is show up at the airport. I'm still active as a CFI and "inherit" a broad spectrum of pilots who simply amplify and reinforce my contention as stated above. 6,000+ hours of dual given and still going strong...... I'd also suggest picking up a copy of the "Aeronautical Chart User's Guide". It's a bargain at $4 (or can be read free online)... http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide > Do you know how to read one? Yes. > Have you spent any time studying the legend on the face of the chart and > the backside too? Yes > Have you ever looked at all the margin information? Yes. > If not you are shorting yourself of a lot of information. > US pilots in general do a poor job of being able to read an > aeronautical chart and decipher the information printed. Sad but true. What do you base that on? > Is it your fault or of your CFI for not teaching you or demanding you > learn to read aeronautical charts? > Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just > basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe > altitudes. > Challenge? I have a lifelong interest in maps and aviation. My collection of sectionals covers the US and goes back to the thirties. I find it fascinating to examine the changes in a particular area over time. For all you smartasses out there, I did not acquire all of them new. > For all you smartasses out there, I did not acquire all of them new. Where can ya buy'em used? :) > I have a lifelong interest in maps and aviation. My collection of > sectionals covers the US and goes back to the thirties. I find it > fascinating to examine the changes in a particular area over time. > > For all you smartasses out there, I did not acquire all of them new. They make great gift wrap for pilots, too! SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor I was not aware that "minimum safe altitudes", actually appear on sectinals. Learn something new everyday. Watson > Do you know how to read one? Have you spent any time studying the > legend on the face of the chart and the backside too? Have you ever [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > altitudes. > Challenge? > I was not aware that "minimum safe altitudes", actually appear on > sectinals. Learn something new everyday. They don't, but they can be quickly determined from information that does appear on the sectional. >> I was not aware that "minimum safe altitudes", actually appear on >> sectinals. Learn something new everyday. > > They don't, but they can be quickly determined from information that does > appear on the sectional. I assume you are talking about the Maximum Elevation Figures in the lat/long quadrangles that show the highest point within the quadrangle. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > I assume you are talking about the Maximum Elevation Figures in the > lat/long quadrangles that show the highest point within the > quadrangle. That and more. > Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just > basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe > altitudes. > Challenge? Good advice. One of our instructors gave a BFR to a pilot who couldn't remember what the "L" meant in: Portland-Mulino (4S9) 260 L 34 123.05 RP 14 He guessed "Left traffic." While you're at it, brush up on the A/FD -c >> Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just >> basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He guessed "Left traffic." Just curious - did the pilot have the sectional in front of him and was he allowed to refer to the Legend? The one thing I do not like (or perhaps misunderstand) about sectionals is the wide magenta border that is used to show where Class E airspace begins 700 ft above the surface. The choice of border highlighting makes those areas appear very prominent (at least to my perception), indicating that the map maker feels they are of prime importance to pilots. I can see why that is important to IFR pilots, but not VFR pilots. As a student, I'm at a loss as to why the location of Class E 700 ft floors should stand out more than, say, Class D airspace, which is depicted using less visible dashed blue lines. >>Good advice. One of our instructors gave a BFR to a pilot who couldn't >>remember what the "L" meant in: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just curious - did the pilot have the sectional in front of him and was he > allowed to refer to the Legend? I'm sure he did, and knowing the instructor reasonably well, I'm sure he'd have been able to refer to the legend. He shouldn't have -had- to for something like that, but that's a different discussion. It certainly wasn't his only problem and to make the matter worse, he was trying really hard to pressure the CFI into signing off the BFR with the 1/1 minimum. (Didn't happen.) > The one thing I do not like (or perhaps misunderstand) about sectionals is > the wide magenta border that is used to show where Class E airspace begins > 700 ft above the surface. The choice of border highlighting makes those > areas appear very prominent (at least to my perception), indicating that > the map maker feels they are of prime importance to pilots. Hadn't thought of it that way, but it's not my favorite marking either. -c >> Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just >> basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He guessed "Left traffic." It doesn't surprise me since it's always my first thought when I see the L. >>> Why not find some obscure symbol and ask your CFI what it is? Or just >>> basic VFR information or military training routes, or minimum safe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It doesn't surprise me since it's always my first > thought when I see the L. I agree. It's always seemed a better place to indicate primary traffic pattern, the field lighting conditions. > Do you know how to read one? Have you spent any time studying the > legend on the face of the chart and the backside too? Have you ever [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > altitudes. > Challenge? Yes I read the sectional charts. I know pretty much every symbol I memorized .I spent long time reading it and planning cross county (even though I have not flown one yet). Actually I enjoyed reading it. For me it is kind of game. Still I enjoy it. I know pretty much every thing what we have with in 25 miles of Renton Airport radius. I love Renton airport. One side lake Washington the other side you see Mt Rainier. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.