Waypoint naming help needed.

The 'Why, Where and How To' about mission planning in DCS
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 906
Joined: 23 Feb 2020, 21:12

Re: Waypoint naming help needed.

Post by Chris »

Chris, I confess that I don't understand some of the points you make.
With the greatest of respect Alan to your RL RAF experience if you undertook the Helo training program especially with regard to route planning and pilotage you may understand where I am coming from.

Your description of your route map is probably not suitable for 60 Squadron and definitively so if the envisaged mission is more than one aircraft and formation flying is involved.

But of course I realise, and take due cognisance, that this is just a video game for enjoyment and there is no need to get hung up on these issues but saying that it undermines training and trainers if that training or procedures are disregarded in formal missions.
Kind Regards
Chris :)

Flyco
Site Admin
Posts: 1909
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 14:30
Location: York

Re: Waypoint naming help needed.

Post by Flyco »

I am sorry Chris, but I still do not understand why my route is not suitable for 60 Sqn. I have attached a copy of my (still incomplete) mission, and would welcome your views on how it should be changed.
Attachments
SAS Pick-Up Hueys Only dev 4.miz
(49.82 KiB) Downloaded 91 times
Wing Commander Alan Johnson - RAFAir UK
Image
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 906
Joined: 23 Feb 2020, 21:12

Re: Waypoint naming help needed.

Post by Chris »

The mission dictates a specific detailed long and complex WP short legged guided route with no input from the anyone who has undergone training. FL especially in single manned ships over complex routes is an advanced skill. Some even refuse to be FL because of the difficulty. In short the naming conventions are wrong, there are no SP (Start Point - not to be confused to take off point or PZ) nor RP (Release Point) defined with regard to topography or weather. ACPs CPs PZ, RPs etc named numerically ascending. There are min / max distances for separation. If using timed legs then ensure different correct speeds dictated for flight modes, NOE, LLF or TF. Avoid overpreparation. If using a map and not a card use correct symbology with dashed lines indicating NOE. Formation flying avoid turns greater than 60deg Avoid turns greater than 5deg after RP, land into wind. For ACP and CP select features easily ID at a distance, away from towns, lights, easily confirmed with with other features and associated with terrain. Select points 5-20km apart (Any closer causes FL PIC overload) except PZ to Sp and RP to LZ when 3-5km. LZ should be recce'ed F10 using all tools for suitability and size for formation. Without digging out the planners there is probably something I missed.

Depends on the seriousness of the mission consider just giving start point and LZ's togther ewith intel and let an experienced FL plan the route and mode.

Andrew knows my views on flight planning and preparation and for many they prefer to just fly about having fun bungeeing around the sky with impromptu bar-b-ques and in truth if thats what they enjoy why not?

I have no say in what 60 SQN fly or not or how BUT I do let them know what they SHOULD be doing....

This kneeboard aide may be of assistance...
route planning.jpg
route planning.jpg (95.86 KiB) Viewed 1235 times
Kind Regards
Chris :)

Flyco
Site Admin
Posts: 1909
Joined: 11 Jan 2015, 14:30
Location: York

Re: Waypoint naming help needed.

Post by Flyco »

Ok Chris, thanks for outlining your points. I am not attempting to undermine any teaching you have given to the RW chaps and I am sorry not to have taken up your offer of training for myself - the problem was that I had a 3-4 week period when my system was pretty unusable. That is now over (I hope) and I would be very happy to accept your invitation if it still stands.

Regarding use of your RW SOPs as they relate to my mission. I understand the need for common practices and will amend my route where it is feasible and does not make the task harder. I will amend my WP 1 to be titled "SP#1", introduce a "RP#1" and rename the "LZ Pick Up" as "PZ#1". I am reluctant to rename my named WPs, because of the need to have a common name when liaising with the A-10 top cover - hence they will remain as "SAM Alley", "Mizur Turn", and "North Valley". The other named WPs are more as memory jogs as I mentioned, and so I will leave them as "Fence In", "Start Climb", "Climb", and "Fence Out".

The use of curved and dotted lines on maps is problematical within DCS. I fly using the Kneeboard Map, which I don't think allows such niceties. I get around the absence of the curves by inserting additional WPs along the different legs - not ideal, but I do not know of any other way of identifying preferred routes between "ACPs" and "CPs" as defied by your SOPs.

I am content, if 60 Sqn do wish to fly this sortie, that an experienced FL should plan the route afresh. However, for the record, I would consider myself a "Experienced" Flt Ldr, on single training jets and multi-engined tactical transport ac, and (risking the wrath of the RW) do not believe that at our level there is any great difference in principle between formation leading in FW or RW aircraft. I also share your views about people wanting to have fun "bungeeing around the sky" instead of taking it all very seriously - it is frustrating when people who think they know better disagree with us. Unfortunately that is a cross we will both have to bear (Removes tongue from cheek - and dons trusty tin helmet)

I enjoy our little chats, and extend the offer for you to fly with me and Andrew, either on my version of this sortie or on a corrected one.

Incidentally, I have attached a print out of the route.
Attachments
SAS Pickup Route.pdf
(586.63 KiB) Downloaded 92 times
Wing Commander Alan Johnson - RAFAir UK
Image
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 906
Joined: 23 Feb 2020, 21:12

Re: Waypoint naming help needed.

Post by Chris »

Flyco wrote: 11 Feb 2021, 12:12 (risking the wrath of the RW) do not believe that at our level there is any great difference in principle between formation leading in FW or RW aircraft.
Correct in principle with helo adaptions to cater for the concurrent ability of controlling and flying the UH1H whilst leading a formation in such a manner that close formation may be held especially when coming into a hot lz i.e. 3 RD 45deg separation for mutual gun support. Remember everyone are students in a helicopters as they don't fly; they vibrate so much and make so much noise that the earth rejects them, they aren't more dangerous but crashing them is what's dangerous as it happens more often. and of course people fly planes but only pilots fly helicopters. :roll:

Yes it would ne nice to quickly run through the BP and SP programs bypassing what your competent at at and looking at what might be new.
Kind Regards
Chris :)

Post Reply

Return to “Mission Planning”