planning

S

smilo

Moderator
Staff member
yesterday, I downloaded and installed Plan-G.
even though is runs very slow on my machine
and I am in the learning curve of its potential,
I am having a lot of fun with it.
one of the things that I have come across
is the airspace feature.
during the Race, what procedures do we follow
regarding Special Use 1 & 2 Airspace?
do we fly around them or is it alright to fly through them?
can we expect a brace of SAMs if we enter? :pop4:
 
That Plan-G program is amazing, and will be a great planning tool.

We pay no attention to airspace in the race. What makes planning a challenge is the bonus airports, which give you bonuses in the form of time which you subtract from your time after the race, required airports, which you simply have to transfer the baton at, “corridors”, specified points between which normal leg time and distance requirements are lifted, the "wild card" leg, which is similar to a corridor, but you only get one of, between points of our choosing, required aircraft, which may have crappy speed and/or range, which also affect planning, planes you can't fly more than three times, other planes you must fly more than three times, and latitude requirements, meaning our route must cross above and below a required latitude. I think that about covers it! Oh, and some years we have to avoid some airspace, like Iran, for example. These special treats are usually driven by real world current events.

All this has made "planning" an issue of late. It's now very complicated...
 
it wouldn't surprise me that some of the information isn't given until the last minute.
just to make it interesting.
is everyone involved in the planning
or are there a few people who specialize in it?
seems like it could be an overwhelming task for one or two people.
 
We normally don't get any info until 24hrs before the race to keep it interesting....
 
So I wonder, what is the optimum number of people to do the RTW planning?

1 or 2 people = not enough.

20 people = far too many!
 
The RTW was never meant for teams to have planning committees to plot out the route. The intention was for each pilot to do his own navigation which is what we were doing in the beginning. Unfortunately the urge to win has overrode the challenge of finding your own way towards the finish line. So much for the spirit of the event.
 
Hey All,

Planning... Boy have I been there done that! For what it's worth here is my take...

First I'll start off with the fact that I like planning. I like the fact that you can lose the RTW before the first flight if you have a bad plan. Conversely a good plan will give you an edge or at the very least put you on even footing with your competitors. It's no different than in real life - planning your route, planning for the weather, planning your fuel, planning contingencies along the way - planning is as integral to flying as flying itself - it's completely appropriate that the RTW place significant emphasis on planning. That said...

There are really two concerns in RTW planning - the first is strategic - the second is tactical. You start with strategic - general route, worthwhile bonuses and avoidance of "traps". Then you move into tactical - where do we fly what? Maybe even looking at airports for landing at - although this really isn't necessary if you have pilots who want to do that themselves - they just need to know where to go. Then you start looking for combinations of strategy and tactics that might be advantageous - there may be some - there may not. You can "mess up" a good strategic plan with a bad tactical plan and you probably won't get much back having good tactics if the strategic plan is bad. Then of course even if both the strategic and tactical plans are good - if you don't execute...

You also have to think about the intangibles - weather, winds, where will darkness find you? - trying to do what? You should really think about your team - what are we good at? What are we uncomfortable with?

These are the things that I think about with respect to planning - I know how I "weight" them in planning. I have 6 years of watching plans play out in the RTW and have a feel for what tends to be advantageous based on history.

How many people should be involved in planning? Well I think it can be any number but probably less than a half dozen - just for logistic reasons. It would work best if some focused on tactical considerations even as strategic issues are being worked out. The real keys are - can the planners communicate? Can they see beyond their pride? Can they see that expertise in one facet of flight simulation does not make you an expert in all parts? Is there real honest respect and give and take? Is there a willingness to listen - even at the 11th hour? Those are the qualities that make or break planning. They are also the qualities that make or break a team.

As for last year I had little time but plan to make more this year - probably even take the day off before the race to help if I can. If I can't help that'll be ok as well.

Just my $0.02 canadian...

-Ed-
 
Every RTW race which I have participate in, or been a part of setting up - has at least three equal distance/ time routes around the world.

Yes, there are also a couple traps which are purposely made to look good, but are really bad overall.

We also balance the mileage for various aircraft classes / speed ranges. Our time estimates have been very close during the actual races.

So far, no team has ever taken the completely shortest/ fastest route. And despite running dozens, usually over a hundred possibile routes before we finalize the parameters. We are always surprised by the final routes. Sometimes like Avsim's jet wildcard to Baguio or SOH's side trip from MDPC-TXKF - really surprise us with their inventive/ outside the box thinking.

While planning and routing are undoubtedly important - the key factor still comes down to flying. No race has been won by a best route.

Yes, you can loose early with a bad route.

What wins races is avoiding crashes. I went to bed certain in my first race in 2005 that I had thrown away FlightSim's chance of their first victory with a crash at EGLC. That was a year before wingmen - so the two hour/ 671 nm leg had to be completely reflown. Had Avsim not also crashed - they would have won.

Last year - the Avsim team had 1 hr 30 min. FlightSim had 3 hours 15 minutes of penalties. The margin of victory was 39 minutes.

Historically the team with the least crashes wins.

That is where the tactical part plays into the planning. Pilots need to know what they are flying into. The airport, the surrounding terrain, etc. Nothing works like scouting the landing airport before you takeoff. Surprises on final are really bad.

A key part of tactical planning is communication. Teamspeak is a crucial advantage. The FlightSim team does not do a cast in stone route with every airport specified. A lot of the detail is only three to five airports ahead - some times less.

On-line communications also makes it much easier to handle emergencies, including possible implications. That let the FlightSim team handle the pilot unable to land at Flores in the Azores, and divert to Lajes. Critical that year since the pilot trying to land was the wingman.
 
If you have not looked at the program - I recommend you download and examine Plan-G by Tim Arnot - http://[URL="http://www.taosoft.com"]www.taosoft.co.uk[/URL]

It offers some very interesting options - works much like FS-Nav which is no longer available for new users - works with both FS2004 and FSX.

Plan-G also can be run and flight plans created/ tweaked without starting up Flight Sim.
 
One feature I would love to see in planning software is the ability to show more than one flight plan. This would allow planners to see where all the corridors, air bridges, etc., are located. I like that Plan-G program though. Very nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top