Plan to be in the Phoenix area towards the middle of May, enroute to KMYF.

What route would you recommend from the Phoenix area to KMYF ?

RT12 writes:

> Plan to be in the Phoenix area towards the middle of May, enroute to KMYF.
>
> What route would you recommend from the Phoenix area to KMYF ?

GBN and V66 westbound. It's about the only economical path that allows you to
sneak between the many restricted areas west of Phoenix.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> RT12 writes:
>
>> Plan to be in the Phoenix area towards the middle of May, enroute to
>> KMYF.
>>
>> What route would you recommend from the Phoenix area to KMYF ?
>
> GBN and V66 westbound. It's about the only economical path that allows
> you to sneak between the many restricted areas west of Phoenix.

Yes, that's pretty much the route. There's quite a bit of military traffic around GBN (F-16's from Luke
AFB) and also around Yuma so going IFR or flight following if VFR is a good idea. The last time I made
that trip, it was hazy VFR and they gave me the ILS approach into KMYF. Gibbs Flying Service is a great
FBO. Have a good trip.

Mike

O.P. did not state whether VFR or IFR, did not indicate a preference to fly
airways or whether he wished to avoid special use airspace. He could file
direct (or just fly) after checking airspace status.



In article >,
says...
>
>
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> RT12 writes:
>>
>>> Plan to be in the Phoenix area towards the middle of May, enroute to
>>> KMYF.
>>>
>>> What route would you recommend from the Phoenix area to KMYF ?
>>
>> GBN and V66 westbound. It's about the only economical path that allows
>> you to sneak between the many restricted areas west of Phoenix.
>
>Yes, that's pretty much the route. There's quite a bit of military traffic
around GBN (F-16's from Luke
>AFB) and also around Yuma so going IFR or flight following if VFR is a good
idea. The last time I made
>that trip, it was hazy VFR and they gave me the ILS approach into KMYF. Gibbs
Flying Service is a great
>FBO. Have a good trip.
>
>Mike

VOR-DME writes:

> O.P. did not state whether VFR or IFR, did not indicate a preference to fly
> airways or whether he wished to avoid special use airspace. He could file
> direct (or just fly) after checking airspace status.

Direct might be a challenge, since KPHX-KMYF direct would take him through
half a dozen restricted areas, some of which are continuously active and
extend to 80,000 feet MSL (missile firing ranges). V66 is a corridor that
passes between the restricted areas (in fact, it looks like the restricted
areas and airway were deliberately designed that way), and it's only 10 nm
longer than a direct route (a 4% increase).

The Great American West is filled with wide open spaces, but unfortunately the
U.S. military has confiscated many of them, especially in the desert
southwest.

MX knows quite a bit about aviation from a "theoretical" standpoint, but
because he does not actually practice any of it, he doesn't know how it
works. I would not add even 10nm to my route simply out of fear of making a
radio call. I will file, or just fly what works for me, and not go out of my
way unless I have to. Nine times out of ten they give you what you ask for,
exception being the busy Northeast.

MX cannot offer any real insight or advice on flying, not only because he
does not fly, but because he is terrified of airplanes and actual flying.



In article >,
says...

>
>Direct might be a challenge, since KPHX-KMYF direct would take him through
>half a dozen restricted areas, some of which are continuously active and
>extend to 80,000 feet MSL (missile firing ranges). V66 is a corridor that
>passes between the restricted areas (in fact, it looks like the restricted
>areas and airway were deliberately designed that way), and it's only 10 nm
>longer than a direct route (a 4% increase).
>
>The Great American West is filled with wide open spaces, but unfortunately
the
>U.S. military has confiscated many of them, especially in the desert
>southwest.

VOR-DME writes:

> MX knows quite a bit about aviation from a "theoretical" standpoint, but
> because he does not actually practice any of it, he doesn't know how it
> works. I would not add even 10nm to my route simply out of fear of making a
> radio call. I will file, or just fly what works for me, and not go out of my
> way unless I have to. Nine times out of ten they give you what you ask for,
> exception being the busy Northeast.

If you have a problem with my recommendation of V66, then explain exactly what
is wrong with it. It seems to work for thousands of pilots, so why wouldn't it
work for you?

Yes, you can call Yuma Range Control or whoever and try to get permission to
pass through a dozen different restricted areas, and hope that neither they
nor you screw anything up that might result in a missile coming your way or a
letter from the FAA, but why bother? You'll save only three minutes out of a
ninety-minute flight. Sheesh. What's bad about being prudent and keeping
things simple?

There are no airways over these restricted areas. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps in part because so many of them are continuously active and extend far
above any altitude that you can fly (often 80,000 feet, and at least one has
an unlimited ceiling).

If you look at filed flight plans for the area, you'll see that V66 is
overwhelmingly favored for flights between the Valley of the Sun and the San
Diego area. J2 follows the same path between the restricted areas, and it is
very commonly used by jets, too.

So why do things the hard way, when you can do them the easy way? Just follow
V66 and you're good. It's not rocket science, and you don't have to be Chuck
Yeager or an ATP with 15,000 hours to understand it.

For what it's worth, I've flown that route thousands of times in simulation,
and probably 100 or so times in real life (as a passenger). I also happen to
know that entire region extremely well, both from the air and from the ground.
I therefore know whereof I speak. I would not presume to make recommendations
for other parts of the U.S. with which I'm not familiar, but that route
happens to be one that I know very well indeed.

I am a prudent pilot in simulation, just as I would be in real life. I have no
fear of radio calls; in fact, I fly IFR a great deal and prefer it if the
weather is less than perfect (although it's often quite favorable along V66).
I generally go around restricted areas, rather than try to get permission to
go through them, depending on their schedules, ceilings, distribution, etc. I
know one can sometimes get permission to pass through them, but I'm not in a
rush (people are more likely to die when they're in a rush), and complicating
a flight increases the likelihood of making a mistake. I've called Joshua
occasionally to try to take a shortcut through some of those pesky areas
around Edwards AFB and China Lake (which I was granted), but that was mostly
just curiosity. Slow and safe is best.

On May 2, 7:42*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
> > MX knows quite a bit about aviation from a "theoretical" standpoint, but
> > because he does not actually practice any of it, he doesn't know how it
> > works. I would not add even 10nm to my route simply out of fear of making a
> > radio call. I will file, or just fly what works for me, and not go out of my
> > way unless I have to. Nine times out of ten they give you what you ask for,
> > exception being the busy Northeast.
>
> If you have a problem with my recommendation of V66, then explain exactly what
> is wrong with it. It seems to work for thousands of pilots, so why wouldn't it
> work for you?
>
> Yes, you can call Yuma Range Control or whoever and try to get permission to
> pass through a dozen different restricted areas, and hope that neither they
> nor you screw anything up that might result in a missile coming your way or a
> letter from the FAA, but why bother? You'll save only three minutes out of a
> ninety-minute flight. Sheesh. What's bad about being prudent and keeping
> things simple?
>
> There are no airways over these restricted areas. Why do you think that is?
> Perhaps in part because so many of them are continuously active and extend far
> above any altitude that you can fly (often 80,000 feet, and at least one has
> an unlimited ceiling).
>
> If you look at filed flight plans for the area, you'll see that V66 is
> overwhelmingly favored for flights between the Valley of the Sun and the San
> Diego area. J2 follows the same path between the restricted areas, and it is
> very commonly used by jets, too.
>
> So why do things the hard way, when you can do them the easy way? Just follow
> V66 and you're good. It's not rocket science, and you don't have to be Chuck
> Yeager or an ATP with 15,000 hours to understand it.
>
> For what it's worth, I've flown that route thousands of times in simulation,
> and probably 100 or so times in real life (as a passenger). I also happen to
> know that entire region extremely well, both from the air and from the ground.
> I therefore know whereof I speak. I would not presume to make recommendations
> for other parts of the U.S. with which I'm not familiar, but that route
> happens to be one that I know very well indeed.
>
> I am a prudent pilot in simulation, just as I would be in real life. I have no
> fear of radio calls; in fact, I fly IFR a great deal and prefer it if the
> weather is less than perfect (although it's often quite favorable along V66).
> I generally go around restricted areas, rather than try to get permission to
> go through them, depending on their schedules, ceilings, distribution, etc. I
> know one can sometimes get permission to pass through them, but I'm not in a
> rush (people are more likely to die when they're in a rush), and complicating
> a flight increases the likelihood of making a mistake. I've called Joshua
> occasionally to try to take a shortcut through some of those pesky areas
> around Edwards AFB and China Lake (which I was granted), but that was mostly
> just curiosity. Slow and safe is best.

On the other hand, it can't get much safer than calling the relevant
authority and saying "Mooney XYZ requests present position direct to
where ever", being told to squawk a given code and being offered radar
separation if one is VFR. That is not rocket science and is safe
flying.

I think off airways with radar separation is safer than VFR on
airways, although my own reality is to be under IFR for nearly any
cross country, simply because it's easier and safer flying.

The problem I have is with non-pilots, who don’t know the system, giving
advice to pilots.
"Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying. "Fast
and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what everyone is
expecting. If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
"keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what you
want.



In article >,
says...

>If you have a problem with my recommendation of V66, then explain exactly
what
>is wrong with it. Sheesh. What's bad about being prudent and keeping
>things simple?
>
Slow and safe is best.

VOR-DME writes:

> The problem I have is with non-pilots, who don’t know the system, giving
> advice to pilots.

In other words, you can't find anything wrong with the suggestion to follow
V66. Your problem is with me, specifically. Like many people, you cannot
discriminate between personality and topic of conversation. You cannot be
objective because you always consider the messenger before the message.

Now ... exactly what's wrong with V66? Not with me, but with the suggestion I
gave. Be specific. I _do_ know the system.

> "Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying.

Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but
there are no old, bold pilots. Flying safely has nothing to do with fear, and
it has everything to do with reason and intelligence.

Not that there's anything inherently unsafe about asking permission to fly
over all those firing ranges. But you only gain three minutes, and there are
many opportunities for mistakes to be made when you want to take shortcuts
through restricted areas, even if the controlling authorities give you
permission. You complicate your flight greatly for an insignificant gain. That
is not logical.

The opposite of slow and safe is fast and unsafe. Is that your suggestion?

> "Fast and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what everyone is
> expecting.

Why does so much traffic follow V66/J2, then? Why did the government bother
creating these airways and threading them between restricted areas if the
majority of pilots are just going to set Direct-To on the GPS and negotiate
their way through missile firing ranges?

> If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
> "keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what you
> want.

Not true, given the number of aircraft that are flying those airways. You
don't have to ask for anything if you follow the routes that are already there
and ready for you to fly.

In article >,
says...

>
>In other words, you can't find anything wrong with the suggestion to follow
>V66. Your problem is with me, specifically. Like many people, you cannot
>discriminate between personality and topic of conversation. You cannot be
>objective because you always consider the messenger before the message.

Quite the contrary, when the "messenger" is demonstrably unqualified, such an
objection is wholly objective, and would be upheld by any qualified scrutiny.


>
>Now ... exactly what's wrong with V66? Not with me, but with the suggestion I
>gave. Be specific. I _do_ know the system.

You do not. Once again, the OP didn’t say much about his/her intentions or
capabilities. If filing IFR and slant\G they’re going to be scratching their
heads if you file airways. Doesn’t mean they’ll clear you through the "R’s",
but if you get cleared through these areas, it’s a sure bet there’s no missile
coming your way, and I wouldn’t give it a second thought. MX’s repeated
references to "dying" if you make the slightest misjudgment are clear
indications of his sheer terror of flying and disqualify him categorically as
a credible commentator on the subject.

Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really? You must have a
lot of time on your hands. After the 1656th time flying this desolate route,
what did you learn? Especially considering that not even once did you dare to
ask for a different routing...

>I would not presume to make recommendations for other parts of the U.S. with
>which I'm not familiar,

Not true, you would and routinely do make comments and recommendations about
any and every subject you know nothing about.
Incidentally, you appear to be unaware of the fact that Victor Airways are not
only mot mandatory, but actually obsolescent, and will not be with us that
much longer after Next-Gen and ADS-B.








>
>> "Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying.
>
>Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots,
but
>there are no old, bold pilots. Flying safely has nothing to do with fear, and
>it has everything to do with reason and intelligence.
>
>Not that there's anything inherently unsafe about asking permission to fly
>over all those firing ranges. But you only gain three minutes, and there are
>many opportunities for mistakes to be made when you want to take shortcuts
>through restricted areas, even if the controlling authorities give you
>permission. You complicate your flight greatly for an insignificant gain.
That
>is not logical.
>
>The opposite of slow and safe is fast and unsafe. Is that your suggestion?
>
>> "Fast and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what
everyone is
>> expecting.
>
>Why does so much traffic follow V66/J2, then? Why did the government bother
>creating these airways and threading them between restricted areas if the
>majority of pilots are just going to set Direct-To on the GPS and negotiate
>their way through missile firing ranges?
>
>> If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
>> "keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what
you
>> want.
>
>Not true, given the number of aircraft that are flying those airways. You
>don't have to ask for anything if you follow the routes that are already
there
>and ready for you to fly.

VOR-DME writes:

> Quite the contrary, when the "messenger" is demonstrably unqualified, such an
> objection is wholly objective, and would be upheld by any qualified scrutiny.

The message is either correct, or it isn't, irrespective of its source. If my
message is incorrect, then correct it. And if it is correct, well, it stays
that way whether it came from me or a 25,000-hour ATP, doesn't it?

> You do not.

You haven't answered my question: What's wrong with V66?

> Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really?

Yes, really. I have thousands of hours of simulation time. The route in
question is one of my favorites, for reasons I have already explained.

> You must have a lot of time on your hands.

The spare time I have is mostly spent on simulation.

> After the 1656th time flying this desolate route, what did you learn?

Nothing. It doesn't take long to learn everything about it.

> Especially considering that not even once did you dare to
> ask for a different routing...

I'm not into daring things. I'm into safety and simplicity. The airway is
there for me to use. The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it?

> >I would not presume to make recommendations for other parts of the U.S. with
> >which I'm not familiar,
>
> Not true, you would and routinely do make comments and recommendations about
> any and every subject you know nothing about.

Read what I wrote. I specifically said that I would not make recommendations
for other parts of the U.S. (with respect to routing). I didn't say anything
about any other subject.

> Incidentally, you appear to be unaware of the fact that Victor Airways are not
> only mot mandatory, but actually obsolescent, and will not be with us that
> much longer after Next-Gen and ADS-B.

They are on the charts and they are current. NextGen is mostly smoke and
mirrors, no matter what the FAA's flashy media kits say. ADS-B will not change
this. As long as the airways are on the charts, I'll continue to use them. You
can do what you want. But if you have a problem with this airway, at least
explain why--thousands of pilots who obstinately continue to use the airway
could benefit from your wisdom.

On May 3, 7:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You haven't answered my question: What's wrong with V66?

Why should he answer your questions when you never answer ours????
Guess what, I have questions for you to answer. Let me guess, you
won't answer.

> > Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really?
>
> Yes, really. I have thousands of hours of simulation time. The route in
> question is one of my favorites, for reasons I have already explained.

Simulation is not flying an airplane IN THE REAL WORLD. What part of
that do you not understand?

> > You must have a lot of time on your hands.
>
> The spare time I have is mostly spent on simulation.

Simulation is not flying an airplane IN THE REAL WORLD, what part of
that do you not understand.

These are direct questions, will you please answer. You expect us to
answer your questions. How about reciprocating?

> > After the 1656th time flying this desolate route, what did you learn?
>
> Nothing. It doesn't take long to learn everything about it.

That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

> I'm not into daring things. *I'm into safety and simplicity. *The airway is
> there for me to use. *The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
> out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it? *

YOU DON'T USE AIRWAYS much less V66. You are USING a simulator. I
don't think federal funds are appropriated to MSFS. What part of that
do you not understand?????

> They are on the charts and they are current. NextGen is mostly smoke and
> mirrors, no matter what the FAA's flashy media kits say. ADS-B will not change
> this.

Oh, how about backing this up with references.

Let me guess, you won't because you don't answer questions when called
to task. These are direct questions, please answer them if you wish
to be of any soure worthy of quality.

writes:

> That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.
>
> What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.
>>
>> What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?
>
> I will answer that after you answer my questions.

Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
moron.

wow isn't RAP great.

On May 3, 10:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:

> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
> moron.
>
> wow isn't RAP great.

Birds of a feather flock together don't they?

And your purpose of your response sure didn't make you look less
moronic, did it.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'm not into daring things. I'm into safety and simplicity. The airway is
> there for me to use. The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
> out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it?

You are playing a computer game. You are not in a real airplane or in real
airspace and you are not using any real government resource.

It is impossible for you to do anything that isn't "safe" while playing
a computer game.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you have a problem with my recommendation of V66, then explain exactly what
> is wrong with it. It seems to work for thousands of pilots, so why wouldn't it
> work for you?

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD->NYL->KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

Going over GBN is not necessary.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Kimmy Boyer writes:

> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
> moron.

What do you think of V66 between Phoenix and Montgomery Field?

On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:

> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
> moron.

Neither is a moron. Both have perspectives drawn
from their specific field of experience. While
simulation *is not "flying", wouldn't interest me or
most people in this forum, it is recognized by the
FAA such that the establishment of certificated
training centers are to be developed under
14 CFR part 142 for the advancement of this
technology, so, apparently it's relevant, but
only to a degree.

That being said, here in _recreational_ aviation
piloting the emphesis most surely would be on
real life factors of unpredictability and how we
react to and manage them.

The best answer as to creating an optimum
flight plan is readily available within the annals
of aviation study literature.

> wow isn't RAP great.

Evidently. You posted.

---
Mark

writes:

> You are playing a computer game. You are not in a real airplane or in real
> airspace and you are not using any real government resource.
>
> It is impossible for you to do anything that isn't "safe" while playing
> a computer game.
>
> You are delusional.

Is there something wrong with flying V66 between Phoenix and Montgomery Field?

writes:

> Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
> it is just less than optimal.
>
> If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD->NYL->KMYF and
> at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.

KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine. Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

> Going over GBN is not necessary.

Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

> That's if I were using VOR navigation.

Your route does not include any VORs.

> If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.
>
> Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
> course to go direct to KMYF if possible.

To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
>> it is just less than optimal.
>>
>> If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD->NYL->KMYF and
>> at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.
>
> KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
> route is actually longer than mine.

Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.

> Additionally, your route doesn't use any
> VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
> ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
> 6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
> are flying quite low.

Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
> since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
KCHD->GBN->MOHAK->BZA->IPL-BARET->KMYF

>> Going over GBN is not necessary.
>
> Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

Which is not the same as going over GBN.

>> That's if I were using VOR navigation.
>
> Your route does not include any VORs.

Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

>> If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.
>>
>> Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
>> course to go direct to KMYF if possible.
>
> To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
> R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
> Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
> authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
> your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
> 1.6%.

Big woof.

I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
"checking enroute".

And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
> than the normal V66 route.

The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
from the restricted areas.

If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
being unable to transition any of them.

If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.

A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
appropriate for your equipment and skill level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

> Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

Wrong again. NYL is a Tacan (at least according to Airnav). KNYL is the
Yuma airport. BZA is the nearby VOR on V66.

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

Mike

writes:

> Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

NYL is a TACAN only. You'd have a hard time tuning it in your small civilian
aircraft. And it's low-altitude, so you'd have a hard time receiving it
outside the standard service volume, which isn't big enough to provide you
with en-route navigation.

You could try BZA, which is just to the north, and is part of V66 (meaning
that reception is fairly well assured along all parts of the airway for which
it is used--another advantage of airways).

> Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
> KCHD->GBN->MOHAK->BZA->IPL-BARET->KMYF

Uh, that's what V66 means: all of those intermediate fixes are on V66.

> Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

No. See above.

> Big woof.

You don't need any authorizations to fly V66.

> I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
> those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

So you'd have to fly around them, anyway, making your route even longer, and
rendering your navigation more complex.

> What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
> BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

So would BZA, if you're on V66.

> Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
> restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT.

To gain 90 seconds of flight time?

> And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
> south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
> areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

A three-mile savings.

> The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

How much traffic is that? If you're VFR, you can ask for flight following,
and see and avoid. If you're IFR, you're better off still.

> The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
> from the restricted areas.

Ah, so only the _bad_ pilots use the airways, eh? Good pilots spend an extra
hour planning and navigating a more direct route so that they can save 60
seconds. Right.

> If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
> the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
> being unable to transition any of them.

The savings is insignificant, hardly enough to justify the effort--and you'd
better be certain that your GPS is right on the money.

> If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
> I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.
>
> A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
> appropriate for your equipment and skill level.

Uh-huh. A big part of safe flying is learning the procedures and accepting
them, instead of always trying to be Maverick with home-baked shortcuts. A lot
of people have worked really hard to build a network of airways with
guaranteed navigation performance and safety--why the insistence on rolling
your own?

It's a bit like trying to calculate fuel to the last drop in order to save a
few cents, rather than calculate it fairly accurately and then allow generous
safety margins. And we all know that fuel exhaustion is one of the most common
causes of accidents in general aviation.

Mike Adams writes:

> Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
> aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
> degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument for
> argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

A lot depends on who makes the suggestion. The same suggestion will generate
different amounts of sophomoric noise in replies depending on who makes it.

Mike Adams > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Wrong, NYL is a VOR.
>
> Wrong again. NYL is a Tacan (at least according to Airnav). KNYL is the
> Yuma airport. BZA is the nearby VOR on V66.

Interesting as Golden Eagle FlightPrep shows it as a VORTAC on their
charts.

It looks like an email is in order.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mike Adams" > wrote

> Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
> aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
> degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
> for
> argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> Uh-huh. A big part of safe flying is learning the procedures and accepting
> them, instead of always trying to be Maverick with home-baked shortcuts. A lot
> of people have worked really hard to build a network of airways with
> guaranteed navigation performance and safety--why the insistence on rolling
> your own?

Actually Victor airways were developed to separate the bug smashers from
everyone else and to keep them from controlled airspace.

There is nothing intrinsic about them that provides "guaranteed navigation
performance and safety" other than the accuracy of VOR's and with the
invention of GPS they are becoming obsolete.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Interesting as Golden Eagle FlightPrep shows it as a VORTAC on their
> charts.

What VOR frequency do they give for it?

writes:

> Actually Victor airways were developed to separate the bug smashers from
> everyone else and to keep them from controlled airspace.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The Victor airways provide safe IFR routing
below 18,000 feet and are always controlled airspace. Each airway extends from
the base of controlled airspace up to 18,000. Of course, they can also be used
for VFR. So I don't quite see how they separate bug smashers from everyone
else.

> There is nothing intrinsic about them that provides "guaranteed navigation
> performance and safety" other than the accuracy of VOR's and with the
> invention of GPS they are becoming obsolete.

The guarantees concern obstacle clearance and navaid reception. The VORs that
define the airways can be reasonably expected to remain in range throughout
the airways, whereas when cooking up one's own route via ground navaids, one
must take into account the service volume of the stations. Additionally, the
airways are guaranteed to be free of obstacles throughout their width above a
certain published altitude, and the navaids are guaranteed to be within range
beyond a certain altitude as well (which may be higher than the obstacle
clearance altitude).

Thus, the airways provide more than just VOR navigation--they also provide
obstacle clearance, and that remains true whether you are flying VFR or IFR,
with VORs or GPS. The government goes to a great deal of trouble to provide
obstacle clearance and reception range on published airways; it isn't simply
drawing lines on a chart between VORs and proclaiming them airways.

Finally, VORs are hardly becoming obsolete, no matter what fantasies the FAA
might entertain. The President has already destroyed one safety backup by
shutting down LORAN; if the same is done for VORs, there will be no backup at
all for GPS, and that will be a very bad thing, as GPS is trivially easy to
jam and spoof.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Interesting as Golden Eagle FlightPrep shows it as a VORTAC on their
>> charts.
>
> What VOR frequency do they give for it?

Don't know, don't care.

The fact that it is shown as a VORTAC on their vector charts is enough for
me to send in a bug report, which I have already done.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Actually Victor airways were developed to separate the bug smashers from
>> everyone else and to keep them from controlled airspace.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying. The Victor airways provide safe IFR routing
> below 18,000 feet and are always controlled airspace. Each airway extends from
> the base of controlled airspace up to 18,000. Of course, they can also be used
> for VFR. So I don't quite see how they separate bug smashers from everyone
> else.

Victor airways are Class E airspace.

>> There is nothing intrinsic about them that provides "guaranteed navigation
>> performance and safety" other than the accuracy of VOR's and with the
>> invention of GPS they are becoming obsolete.
>
> The guarantees concern obstacle clearance and navaid reception. The VORs that
> define the airways can be reasonably expected to remain in range throughout
> the airways, whereas when cooking up one's own route via ground navaids, one
> must take into account the service volume of the stations. Additionally, the
> airways are guaranteed to be free of obstacles throughout their width above a
> certain published altitude, and the navaids are guaranteed to be within range
> beyond a certain altitude as well (which may be higher than the obstacle
> clearance altitude).

As I said, the invention of GPS is making Victor airways obsolete.

There is nothing about a Victor airway that guarantees obstacle clearance
as they are defined by systems that only provide horizontal information.

What guarantees being free of obstacles is looking at a sectional, which
is the same whether you are using Victor airways or GPS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Victor airways are Class E airspace.

Yes. And Class E is controlled airspace. That's one of the distinctions
between airways and off-airway areas, and indeed, Victor airways are one of
the reasons for Class E. You need a clearance to fly IFR in Class E, and the
VFR minimums are more stringent. You can fly IFR without a clearance in Class
G, and the minimums for VFR are less strict. You can even do aerobatics in
Class G, with certain restrictions.

> As I said, the invention of GPS is making Victor airways obsolete.

Since the airways provide obstacle clearance, they are unlikely to become
obsolete. That clearance is independent of the navigation method used.

Your faith in GPS-only navigation is worrisome.

> There is nothing about a Victor airway that guarantees obstacle clearance
> as they are defined by systems that only provide horizontal information.

No, they are defined as three-dimensional spaces that are clear of obstacles
within specified distances and tolerances. That's why all the Victor airways
have published minimum altitudes for every segment of the airway. Above those
altitudes, there should be no obstacles, so they are safe for IFR flight.

This remains true for these airways even if you choose to navigate through
them with GPS instead of VORs.

> What guarantees being free of obstacles is looking at a sectional, which
> is the same whether you are using Victor airways or GPS.

Looking at a chart tells you the minimum altitudes for the airways, and that's
what protects you.

writes:

> Don't know, don't care.

So you're planning a route that uses this station for navigation, and you
don't care about the station frequency? How do you plan to tune to the station
without this information.

> The fact that it is shown as a VORTAC on their vector charts is enough for
> me to send in a bug report, which I have already done.

Good for you, but how can you look at a VORTAC and not notice the frequency?

TACANs don't have a VOR frequency, which is a really, really good hint that
they shouldn't be used for VOR navigation. On the standard NACO IFR charts,
this station has only a channel, without a VOR frequency, so you know right
away that it's different (it uses a different symbol, too).

On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Mike Adams" > wrote
>
> > Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
> > aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
> > degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
> > for
> > argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.
>
> *No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
> advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
> for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.
>
> Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
> be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments..

> --
> Jim in NC

It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

On May 4, 8:26*am, Mark > wrote:
> On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Adams" > wrote
>
> > > Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
> > > aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
> > > degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
> > > for
> > > argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.
>
> > *No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
> > advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
> > for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.
>
> > Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
> > be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
> is the case. *Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
> to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
> reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
> participation. If he is that, then you are right.
>
> ---
> Mark

Is deliberate ignorance really ignorance? After all these months/
years do you think that he is really interested in 'sincere'
participation? Seems to me he is always after the conflict, not
looking for any truth or conclusion. Which, by the way, is a typical
aspect of a troll.

Keep on feeding him, and falling for his baits, and you'll have to
keep on 'correcting' him when he is uncorrectable. He has no interest
of learning anything from you. He just wants to provoke you into an
argument.

From the very first post in this thread, you could tell it was bait.
He knew he would stoke the fire by answering before any real pilots.
Which is why he went out of his way to not post any of his typical
'questions', and pretended to look like he knew what he was talking
about. It wasn't until after you guys took the bait that he started
spouting the 'tell me what am I saying that is wrong' tripe,
successfully derailing the conversation.

Some people never learn it seems. Sorry.

Mike

I actually do have a question for the knowledgeable people here
though.

I'm still a newbie student pilot, so don't have a bunch of
experience. Out here in the midwest we don't have a bunch of the
restricted airspace like apparently out in the desert. Especially the
ones in question here that look like heavily clustered, and ranging
from 0 AGL to 80000 MSL. When calling the controlling agency is it
typical to be able to ask clearance into them all of them at once? Or
must it be done piecewise. Any risk of getting cleared into some of
them, then getting told the next is 'active' and having to adjust for
it? Could be problematic especially for the clustered restricted like
2306A, 2308A, 2308B, etc.

Is it typical for these clusters to have two different controlling
agencies? Probably not I hope.

Seems to someone like me not used to dealing with confusion like these
heavily clustered areas that it would be a pain to deal with.

Mike

Am 04.05.2010 04:30, schrieb Morgans:

> No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
> advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
> for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat
you with experience."

> Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
> be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Don't know, don't care.
>
> So you're planning a route that uses this station for navigation, and you
> don't care about the station frequency? How do you plan to tune to the station
> without this information.

No, I don't care what frequency, if any, FlightPrep gives since the depiction
on the chart is wrong to start with.

>> The fact that it is shown as a VORTAC on their vector charts is enough for
>> me to send in a bug report, which I have already done.
>
> Good for you, but how can you look at a VORTAC and not notice the frequency?

The frequencies are of no interest while doing initial planning and are
irrelevant until the route has been cross checked against the raster charts
and finalized.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>> That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.
>>>
>>> What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?
>>
>> I will answer that after you answer my questions.
>
>Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
>moron.
>
>wow isn't RAP great.

No wonder most of us have left.

OK, question for the morons...I'm a pilot and aircraft owner. Altho
I've never flown between Phoenix & Montgomery, but I have flown
in Arizona (and Phoenix in particular), is my recommendation any
less valid or more valid?

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
such, it does make sense.

[I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
supporting him...)

On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:30:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
> advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
> for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.
>
> Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
> be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
> --
> Jim in NC

Simple.

There are a lot of bored people on RAP. Many of them too old to fly so
they come here for something to do.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

> wrote:
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
>>> it is just less than optimal.
>>>
>>> If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD->NYL->KMYF and
>>> at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.
>>
>> KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
>> route is actually longer than mine.
>
>Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.
>
>> Additionally, your route doesn't use any
>> VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
>> ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
>> 6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
>> are flying quite low.
>
>Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.
>
>> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
>> since the V66 route was designed by specialists.
>
>Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
>KCHD->GBN->MOHAK->BZA->IPL-BARET->KMYF
>
>>> Going over GBN is not necessary.
>>
>> Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.
>
>Which is not the same as going over GBN.
>
>>> That's if I were using VOR navigation.
>>
>> Your route does not include any VORs.
>
>Wrong, NYL is a VOR.
>
>>> If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.
>>>
>>> Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
>>> course to go direct to KMYF if possible.
>>
>> To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
>> R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
>> Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
>> authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
>> your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
>> 1.6%.
>
>Big woof.
>
>I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
>those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.
>
>What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
>BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.
>
>Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
>restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
>POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
>"checking enroute".
>
>And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
>south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
>areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.
>
>> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
>> than the normal V66 route.
>
>The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.
>
>The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
>from the restricted areas.
>
>If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
>the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
>being unable to transition any of them.
>
>If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
>I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.
>
>A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
>appropriate for your equipment and skill level.

Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.

Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Victor airways are Class E airspace.
>
> Yes. And Class E is controlled airspace. That's one of the distinctions
> between airways and off-airway areas, and indeed, Victor airways are one of
> the reasons for Class E. You need a clearance to fly IFR in Class E, and the
> VFR minimums are more stringent. You can fly IFR without a clearance in Class
> G, and the minimums for VFR are less strict. You can even do aerobatics in
> Class G, with certain restrictions.

A mix of nonsense and half truths.

Class E is the most relaxed of all controlled airspace.

Between 1,200 AGL and 10,000 MSL the VFR minimums for Class E and G are
the same.

You are not required to talk to anyone in Class E and if you stay below
10,000 feet you don't need to have either a radio or transpoder except
for a few select areas.

You need a clearance to fly IFR.

>> As I said, the invention of GPS is making Victor airways obsolete.
>
> Since the airways provide obstacle clearance, they are unlikely to become
> obsolete. That clearance is independent of the navigation method used.

No, Victor airways do not "provide obstacle clearance" and since the
airways are defined by navaids that only provide horizontal information,
it would be impossible for them to do so.

Obstacle clearance is provided by looking at the sectional, the same as
for any other route.

The depiction on the sectional for airways has the added convenience of
showing a minimum altitude for VOR reception.

Saying a Victor airway provides obstacle clearance is like saying Class
E airspace provides obstacle clearance as they are both defined as
starting no lower than 1200 AGL.

> Your faith in GPS-only navigation is worrisome.

Tough luck. GPS is here to stay and you are assuming I don't use the VOR
system.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blanche writes:

> And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
> made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
> such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
> trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
> such, it does make sense.

Thanks.

> I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
> supporting him...)

It might be easier to believe if you remember that I'm just passing
information on, not making it up. I didn't cook up the route myself. I looked
at the charts, too, and I looked at existing flight plans, and (long ago) I
experimented with trying other routes, etc. Hundreds of flights follow this
route every day, so why should I reinvent the wheel? It jumps out at you from
the chart; it's obviously intended to get you efficiently and safely to SoCal.

It mystifies me that anyone would insist on rejecting what is obviously the
most practical solution. I think that it may be a rejection of authority,
which is a very dangerous trait in a pilot.

As it happens, I'm passing over Dateland at this very minute, FL320 on J2 to
KSAN. Recently the LYNDI2 has replaced the BARET4 as the preferred arrival, so
I filed that.

Blanche > wrote:
> Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>>On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>> On May 3, 9:36?am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>>>> That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.
>>>>
>>>> What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?
>>>
>>> I will answer that after you answer my questions.
>>
>>Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
>>moron.
>>
>>wow isn't RAP great.
>
> No wonder most of us have left.
>
> OK, question for the morons...I'm a pilot and aircraft owner. Altho
> I've never flown between Phoenix & Montgomery, but I have flown
> in Arizona (and Phoenix in particular), is my recommendation any
> less valid or more valid?
>
> And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
> made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
> such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
> trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
> such, it does make sense.
>
> [I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
> supporting him...)

There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.

The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
to them that doesn't exist.

Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

The "best" route depends on your equipment and your goals, and can
include anything from minimum fuel to wanting to see some scenic landmark
from the air.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> No, I don't care what frequency, if any, FlightPrep gives since the depiction
> on the chart is wrong to start with.

But you apparently didn't care about the frequency before you learned of the
error, either.

> The frequencies are of no interest while doing initial planning and are
> irrelevant until the route has been cross checked against the raster charts
> and finalized.

Checking the frequency would have told you something was wrong.

And why select NYL if BZA is right next to it and happens to be on V66 and
clear of all MOAs and restricted areas? What does picking a different station
prove?

Blanche > wrote:

> Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
> skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
> It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.
>
> Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
> Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

Either route will get you from A to B legally and safely.

What I disagree with is MX's assignment of some mystical qualities of
"rightness" and "safeness" of flying Victors that don't exist.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Class E is the most relaxed of all controlled airspace.

So what?

> Between 1,200 AGL and 10,000 MSL the VFR minimums for Class E and G are
> the same.

Not during the day. Class G has 1-mile visibility minimum during the day;
Class E has three miles.

> You are not required to talk to anyone in Class E ...

Unless you are within the vicinity of an airport, that is.

> ... and if you stay below
> 10,000 feet you don't need to have either a radio or transpoder except
> for a few select areas.

Which areas are those? What happens above 10,000 feet?

> You need a clearance to fly IFR.

Not in Class G. You only need a clearance in controlled airspace, which Class
G is not.

> No, Victor airways do not "provide obstacle clearance" and since the
> airways are defined by navaids that only provide horizontal information,
> it would be impossible for them to do so.

Of course they provide obstacle clearance, otherwise they wouldn't be much use
for IFR.

> Obstacle clearance is provided by looking at the sectional, the same as
> for any other route.

Obstacle clearance under VFR is provided by looking out the window. Under IFR,
clearance is provided by looking at IFR charts, not VFR sectionals. The IFR
charts show minimum enroute altitudes for airways and minimum safe altitudes
for off-airway routing.

> The depiction on the sectional for airways has the added convenience of
> showing a minimum altitude for VOR reception.

Where?

> Saying a Victor airway provides obstacle clearance is like saying Class
> E airspace provides obstacle clearance as they are both defined as
> starting no lower than 1200 AGL.

No, a Victor airway has been surveyed and planned specifically to be clear of
obstacles. Class E in general provides no such assurance.

> Tough luck. GPS is here to stay and you are assuming I don't use the VOR
> system.

The only tough luck is for pilots who have no clue about how GPS works or what
its limitations and vulnerabilities are. Some of them have already learned
about these the hard way.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On May 3, 10:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>
>> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
>> moron.
>>
>> wow isn't RAP great.
>
> Birds of a feather flock together don't they?

Apparently.

Moron.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>
>> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
>> moron.
>
> Neither is a moron. I should know since I am one.

Dadd(ie) did you tell everyone why you shot me in the head?
--
Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

Mxsmanic > wrote:


> It might be easier to believe if you remember that I'm just passing
> information on, not making it up. I didn't cook up the route myself. I looked
> at the charts, too, and I looked at existing flight plans, and (long ago) I
> experimented with trying other routes, etc. Hundreds of flights follow this
> route every day, so why should I reinvent the wheel? It jumps out at you from
> the chart; it's obviously intended to get you efficiently and safely to SoCal.

V66 is no more safe or efficient than any other legal route.

> It mystifies me that anyone would insist on rejecting what is obviously the
> most practical solution.

Obviously the most practical to you only.

> I think that it may be a rejection of authority,
> which is a very dangerous trait in a pilot.

Victor airways have no "authority" of any kind. Anyone is free to use them
or not as they desire.

> As it happens, I'm passing over Dateland at this very minute, FL320 on J2 to
> KSAN. Recently the LYNDI2 has replaced the BARET4 as the preferred arrival, so
> I filed that.

Nonsense, you are sitting in front of a computer playing a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

Then why do they exist?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, I don't care what frequency, if any, FlightPrep gives since the depiction
>> on the chart is wrong to start with.
>
> But you apparently didn't care about the frequency before you learned of the
> error, either.

Yep, because as I said below checking frequencies is one of the last things
done.

>> The frequencies are of no interest while doing initial planning and are
>> irrelevant until the route has been cross checked against the raster charts
>> and finalized.
>
> Checking the frequency would have told you something was wrong.

Which, if it were a real plan, would have been done at the end like I said
four times now.

> And why select NYL if BZA is right next to it and happens to be on V66 and
> clear of all MOAs and restricted areas? What does picking a different station
> prove?

So would be NYL if it were a VORTAC as shown by FlightPrep and it would
be a shorter VOR to VOR route, if it existed, and you wouldn't be on V66,
you would be close to it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>> You are not required to talk to anyone in Class E ...
>
> Unless you are within the vicinity of an airport, that is.

Certain, selected airports, not airports in general.

>> ... and if you stay below
>> 10,000 feet you don't need to have either a radio or transpoder except
>> for a few select areas.
>
> Which areas are those? What happens above 10,000 feet?

The Class E area adjacent to selected airports, pay attention.

What happens above 10,000 feet is you need a transponder for any airspace.
>
>> You need a clearance to fly IFR.
>
> Not in Class G. You only need a clearance in controlled airspace, which Class
> G is not.

So you just fly along in Class G and unilaterally declare yourself to be
flying IFR?

>> Saying a Victor airway provides obstacle clearance is like saying Class
>> E airspace provides obstacle clearance as they are both defined as
>> starting no lower than 1200 AGL.
>
> No, a Victor airway has been surveyed and planned specifically to be clear of
> obstacles. Class E in general provides no such assurance.

Class E has the exact same provision by definition since by definition it
starts at 1,200 AGL.

The point is absent a radar altimeter, you can not tell from navaids
whether or not you are above the lower bounds of either Class E or a
Victor airway.

What provides obstacle clearance during the day is looking out the window
and at night paying close attention to the Sectional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.
>
> Then why do they exist?

Convenience in a pre-GPS world and derived from A-N courses in a pre-VOR
world.

In the VOR world, the ambiguity's in VOR accuracy spreads people laterally
across a Victor airway.

In the GPS world, the accuracy of GPS puts everyone right down the center
line of a Victor airway.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you near a VOR?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Am 04.05.2010 19:33, schrieb :
> > wrote:
>
>
>> > It might be easier to believe if you remember that I'm just passing
>> > information on, not making it up. I didn't cook up the route myself. I looked
>> > at the charts, too, and I looked at existing flight plans, and (long ago) I
>> > experimented with trying other routes, etc. Hundreds of flights follow this
>> > route every day, so why should I reinvent the wheel? It jumps out at you from
>> > the chart; it's obviously intended to get you efficiently and safely to SoCal.

Well, sim-boy ... it brings YOU from one end of your monitor to the
other, nothing more. YOU HAVE NO FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE.

Ever sat in a spam can and approached SoCal in VFR and tried 5
frequencies until one ansered, only to hear them call out a traffic
alert to you and your windshield is half full of an airplane in your 10
o-clock position, you staring into the sun?

F*CK! Get a life AND GET OUT OF HERE!

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

writes:

> V66 is no more safe or efficient than any other legal route.

V66, like all Victor airways, place limits on obstacles, whereas off-airway
navigation does not. If you follow an airway at or above the prescribed
minimum altitudes, you won't hit anything. When you are off-airway, terrain
avoidance is your problem.

> Victor airways have no "authority" of any kind. Anyone is free to use them
> or not as they desire.

That's not at all what I meant. Some people refuse to follow rules or even
suggestions because they perceive it as being told what to do, and they don't
want to be told what to do because it hurts their (typically immature) egos.
It doesn't matter whether the advice or rules make sense or not. People like
this tend to get themselves into trouble, including when they fly airplanes.

> Nonsense, you are sitting in front of a computer playing a game.

No, I played chess later. Landed safely in KSAN, parked the Citation over by
Landmark.

Martin Hotze writes:

> Well, sim-boy ... it brings YOU from one end of your monitor to the
> other, nothing more. YOU HAVE NO FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE.

You don't need it to plan a route. There's nothing magic about actually
flying a real airplane.

> Ever sat in a spam can and approached SoCal in VFR and tried 5
> frequencies until one ansered, only to hear them call out a traffic
> alert to you and your windshield is half full of an airplane in your 10
> o-clock position, you staring into the sun?

No. I'm not that prone to mistakes. I've heard others do stupid things,
though.

writes:

> Convenience in a pre-GPS world and derived from A-N courses in a pre-VOR
> world.

You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously you have a problem with airways, or
at least you have since I suggested one.

I see airways as providing guaranteed levels of obstacle clearance and navaid
reception. Routing is simplified by following pre-established airways as
opposed to making every flight one of a kind.

> In the VOR world, the ambiguity's in VOR accuracy spreads people laterally
> across a Victor airway.
>
> In the GPS world, the accuracy of GPS puts everyone right down the center
> line of a Victor airway.
>
> Which situation is intrinsically safer as you near a VOR?

If you cannot be bothered to see and avoid or use radar flight following, you
can navigate by VOR and benefit from the inaccuracy to which you allude.

You'll have the same problem with GPS when navigating anywhere, including to
arbitrary published waypoints.

On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you navigate alone in your little
airplane?

How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?
How many instances of controlled flight into terrain have occurred off
airways?

Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
airway is that I suggested it. If I had suggested direct GPS, you'd have a
field day with that, especially if I suggested flying through restricted
areas. But your real objective is to try and invalidate whatever I say,
whether it makes sense or not. And it irritates you all the more when what I'm
saying makes sense.

The thing is, I almost always make sense, because I research and study and
look things up, instead of inventing things off the top of my head. I just
repeat what authoritative and reliable sources provide, which pretty much
guarantees that I'll always be right. If you were able to separate the message
from the messenger, you would understand this.

writes:

> So would be NYL if it were a VORTAC as shown by FlightPrep and it would
> be a shorter VOR to VOR route, if it existed, and you wouldn't be on V66,
> you would be close to it.

That doesn't answer my question. BZA is right on V66, it's part of the airway.
NYL is a few miles away. Even if NYL were a VORTAC, why would you route your
flight off-airway over NYL, instead of staying on the airway and overflying
BZA? Especially since NYL is in a MOA, and BZA is not. And the semi-direct
route KCHD.NYL.KMYF is actually slightly over 2 miles longer than the route
KCHD.BZA.KMYF. It doesn't make sense.

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
to think about it.

writes:

> So you just fly along in Class G and unilaterally declare yourself to be
> flying IFR?

If both you and the aircraft are certified for instrument flight, yes.

See FAR 91.173.

> Class E has the exact same provision by definition since by definition it
> starts at 1,200 AGL.

No. There is no guarantee that you will not encounter obstacles or terrain
simply because you are in Class E airspace. On an airway, however, as long as
you remain within the volume of the airway, at or above the minimum altitudes
prescribed for that segment of the airway, you won't hit anything.

By definition, Class E starts at 14,500 feet, although in practice the floor
is usually lowered to 1200 feet AGL. However, it can also start at the
surface, which means that you can hit obstacles extending into Class E
airspace.

> The point is absent a radar altimeter, you can not tell from navaids
> whether or not you are above the lower bounds of either Class E or a
> Victor airway.

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes, which you can heed with an
ordinary barometric altimeter. Above these altitudes, you're safe.
Ground-based navaids do not provide altitude information. GPS altitude is
generally unreliable.

> What provides obstacle clearance during the day is looking out the window
> and at night paying close attention to the Sectional.

I hope you leave generous margins in the latter case.

Or you can fly IFR and use the published minimum altitudes, which are very
generous (so much so that they can be problematic for tiny airplanes in some
areas of the country).

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> V66 is no more safe or efficient than any other legal route.
>
> V66, like all Victor airways, place limits on obstacles, whereas off-airway
> navigation does not. If you follow an airway at or above the prescribed
> minimum altitudes, you won't hit anything. When you are off-airway, terrain
> avoidance is your problem.

Terrain avoidance is always your problem and it makes no difference whether
you are on or off of a Victor airway.

In both cases you have to look at the Sectional and see what the minimum
altitude is for the route.

>> Nonsense, you are sitting in front of a computer playing a game.
>
> No, I played chess later. Landed safely in KSAN, parked the Citation over by
> Landmark.

Delusional.

It is impossible to do anything unsafe in a computer simulation of flight.

No matter what you do, you are still sitting in a chair in front of a
computer screen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
> any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
> low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

> How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

> Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
> airway is that I suggested it.

Nope, the problem I have is you seeme to be convinced that using a Victor
airway has some magical properties that guarantee's safety.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
> could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
> GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
> disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
> Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
> for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
> to think about it.

Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,

Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> wrote

> There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.
>
> The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
> to them that doesn't exist.

MX may be partly right, often.

Thing is, he will always _ _ ALWAYS _ _ end up turning the conversation
around to make you argue a point that is of no importance _ _ JUST _ _ to
prove you wrong.

ALWAYS ! ! !

Can anyone disagree with that?

The point is, why bother, when you know it is coming? Can anyone think of
one good reason? Just one?
--
Jim in NC

On May 4, 1:16*pm, Tiger Boi >
wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>
> >> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
> >> moron.
>
> > Neither is a moron. I should know since I am one.
>
> Dadd(ie) did you tell everyone why you shot me in the head?
> --
> Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
> Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

That's real mature of you Ari. I'm sure all the pilots
here will consult you opinion on aviation matters.
Yeah, your opinion really counts in rec.ava.piloting.
You're what...10 yrs.old?

---
Mark

On May 4, 4:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
.. *There's nothing magic about actually
> flying a real airplane.

****, there's nothing NOT magic about actually
flying a real plane. It's a rush.

---
Mark

On May 4, 11:16*am, Blanche > wrote:

> And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
> made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion.

While the route suggestion is perfectly reasonable, his response to
VOR DME was not.

He types in as if he is flying the route, he is not. I mean really he
says (these are HIS words) "I'm not into daring things. I'm into
safety and simplicity". What is daring about going off a victor
highway in MSFS???? What is unsafe about going off a victor highway
in MSFS. Does the computer reboot if he busts airspace? And to my
knowlege even if the computer rebooted, there is nothing unsafe about
a reboot of a computer. Now, if he said his G1000 rebooted while in a
REAL plane, Houston we have a problem. Heck I don't have any glass
cockpit time so maybe it's not a problem. Simply put, if one didn't
catch all the responses, you would never know he has never set foot in
a cockpit.

VOR DME's thoughts were more along what I would have done. Use GPS as
primary navigation not the airway. GPS way more accurate and as long
as you stay out of airspace, you don't belong in, keep the airplane
on the magenta line and maintain VFR with the ground? Nothing risky
or unsafe at all about doing this as long as you are on top of your
game. If you are not, then you shouldn't be flying in complicated
airspace anyway.

I think that when I ask a question that I get answers from qualified
people. I would hope that you would not count Mx as qualified to
answer real world question from MFSX experience.

Routing and flight planning I don't go to MSFS for scenarios. I use a
real bonified flight planner and fly it in the real bonified world
that expands beyond a computer monitor (or two)

All the flight planning in the world doesn't change the fact when you
plan something and something uhhhh, like a cloud (understand not
likely in Phoenix but a scenario) is between you and your
destination. In all my MSFS sim time, this has never happened to me,
yet in the real world, I have had to deviate to avoid the cloud while
VFR several times while ensuring I remain clear of airspace while
enroute. So, I am pretty safe to say Mx is NOT qualified to answering
questions about flight planning.

I think that Mx's background needs to be brought front and center to
those that step into this newsgroup (I have never seen RT12 post
before) so they understand that he is not qualified to respond to real
world situations when he isn't even a student pilot.

On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On May 4, 1:16*pm, Tiger Boi >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>> On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer > wrote:
>>
>>>> Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
>>>> moron.
>>
>>> Neither is a moron. I should know since I am one.
>>
>> Dadd(ie) did you tell everyone why you shot me in the head?
>> --
>> Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
>> Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack
>
> That's real mature of you Ari. I'm sure all the pilots
> here will consult you opinion on aviation matters.
> Yeah, your opinion really counts in rec.ava.piloting.
> You're what...10 yrs.old?
>
> ---
> Mark

At least he didn't *shoot his kitten* like you did, Dadd(ie).
--
Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
flying.

While there’s nothing "wrong" with the route proposed (the whole
argument being a complete fabrication by MX) a more complete response
might have been something like :
"What kind of flight do you wish to make? If VFR, and not enthused about
scud running under 1500’ over missile-firing ranges, you’ll want to plan
to remain south of the Restricted areas west of Phoenix, or give a call
to get cleared through them. Don’t assume you’ll get cleared though, as
some of them have 'continuous' status, so you may have to just avoid
them. Same goes for IFR and GPS-Direct. You can file it, but you may get
the airway V66 instead. If you don’t want to bother with the restricted
areas, just file the airway, or if VFR, keep south of these areas, or
fly the airway."

So, while there’s nothing wrong with V66, there is just everything wrong
with MX’s initial response, and his ensuing vituperative argument. No
wonder of it - those who do not fly airplanes and whose only references
to aviation are a computer screen and some out of date textbooks will
clearly not develop the reflex and practices of pilots.




In article
>,
says...
>
>
>On May 4, 11:16*am, Blanche > wrote:
>
>> And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
>> made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion.
>
>While the route suggestion is perfectly reasonable, his response to
>VOR DME was not.
>

On May 5, 10:09*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
> route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
> airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
> their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
> considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
> response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
> flying.

Also, if your training was like mine, in VFR training, I wasn't
trained how to set up my Navs for airway navigation. Yes, I was
trained on tracking a radial TO a VFR during my VFR training but
that's it. The purpose of that was to help me get to a point on the
sectional to locate myself should I get lost.

To figure out where I was in relationship to a VOR, my instructor
showed me how to use the FROM flag. Between the FROM flag and DME, I
was able to figure out where I was in relationship to the VOR.

I think your response was spot on with using GPS. This is the wave of
the future for VFR navigation and in my neck of the country, it's the
preferred method for IFR. Almost without exception, when I filed
airways, I got a "would you like direct" question from ATC. The one
time I wasn't equipped for /G (My GPS antenna become uncoupled) ATC
offered me a 168 mile vector which I graciously accepted as airways
put me out 50 miles off my direct routing.

I did not learn how to track airways until I started my IFR training

Most importantly, there is nothing unsafe about OROCA or MORA
navigation providing all tools are used in flight planning as Mx
implies. This applies to my flatlander flying, I can't say anything
about mountain flying as that I would stay on airways for IFR ops.

In article >,
says...

>Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
>could fly one back to Sky Harbor.


If I were you I'd fly BOTH Citations. It's safer - that way if anything unsafe
happens to one, you can just "be" in the other one!

Do you have a Life Simulator? Maybe MSLS?
How many hours do you have in that?

Too bad (for the rest of us) you won't give reality a chance.
That lowly C152, object of disdain, would put you flat on your pompous ass and
face-to-face with reality in approximately 0min,0sec. But alas even this would
not suffice to inspire humility and slow the affront of words to the wise
(from the foolhardy).

Do you often need a "rest" when flying the computer game? So much work?
Stress? When the autopilot is on, what's left? Sit there with your tongue
hanging out, watching the pictures? Does that help with the stress level?



In article >,
says...

>
>Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
>could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
>GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
>disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in
a
>Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
>for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll
have
>to think about it.

On May 5, 1:08*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:

> That lowly C152, object of disdain, would put you flat on your pompous ass and
> face-to-face with reality in approximately 0min,0sec.

Yep, he would be so far behind the plane if he got into a real plane.
Heck, I would be surprised if he made it to the runway with the rudder
dance needed to follow the taxi line.

Quite different reaching for buttons, knobs, handles and and trying to
keep a nav chart on your lap while getting the snot kicked out of you
trying to keep the plane upright from turbulence then pushing F3 or
F8, right and left arrow keys, move a joystick or pedal once in a blue
moon from the comforts of a lazy boy.

Maybe his lazy boy has a vibrator to simulate turbulence? I can say
first hand that MSFS fails to simulate turbulence. I never had the
keyboard, mouse or joy stick move from it's original position as I
reach for it to make some type of control input adjustment.

Or is the truth of the matter is that MSFS is not flying an airplane.
Sheez.

writes:

> Terrain avoidance is always your problem and it makes no difference whether
> you are on or off of a Victor airway.
>
> In both cases you have to look at the Sectional and see what the minimum
> altitude is for the route.

The sectional doesn't give a minimum altitude for the route. That would be on
the IFR charts.

> It is impossible to do anything unsafe in a computer simulation of flight.
>
> No matter what you do, you are still sitting in a chair in front of a
> computer screen.

If you need the threat of harm from any mistakes you make just to get you to
behave like a good pilot, there's a problem.

writes:

> Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
> determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
> or off of a Victor airway.

The minimum safe altitude for an airway isn't necessarily the same as the
maximum elevation figure for the quadrant on the sectional. Furthermore,
OROCAs on IFR charts are still different (with a more generous buffer).

> Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Can you point me to some of them?

writes:

> Routing and flight planning I don't go to MSFS for scenarios. I use a
> real bonified flight planner and fly it in the real bonified world
> that expands beyond a computer monitor (or two)

I don't use MSFS for flight planning, either, as its planning features are
very primitive and not very realistic. I plan as I would for a real-world
flight and then fly that in the sim.

> All the flight planning in the world doesn't change the fact when you
> plan something and something uhhhh, like a cloud (understand not
> likely in Phoenix but a scenario) is between you and your
> destination. In all my MSFS sim time, this has never happened to me,
> yet in the real world, I have had to deviate to avoid the cloud while
> VFR several times while ensuring I remain clear of airspace while
> enroute.

Then you don't have your sim configured correctly. Try Active Sky.

> So, I am pretty safe to say Mx is NOT qualified to answering
> questions about flight planning.

Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.

VOR-DME writes:

> So, while there’s nothing wrong with V66, there is just everything wrong
> with MX’s initial response, and his ensuing vituperative argument.

In other words, I was right, but your personal animosity towards me made it
impossible for you to accept that fact.

If you allow yourself to consider the messenger more important than the
message, you make yourself vulnerable to manipulation. Demogogues know all
about this.

> No wonder of it - those who do not fly airplanes and whose only references
> to aviation are a computer screen and some out of date textbooks will
> clearly not develop the reflex and practices of pilots.

What reflexes do you need to develop a flight plan?

writes:

> Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
> screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.

That's what simulation is all about. Try it.

When you watch a movie, you delude yourself into believing that what's
happening on the screen is real ... otherwise it's impossible to enjoy the
movie. So do you refuse to watch movies because they aren't real?

VOR-DME writes:

> If I were you I'd fly BOTH Citations. It's safer - that way if anything unsafe
> happens to one, you can just "be" in the other one!

The simulator doesn't allow that. Besides, flying a Citation X single-pilot is
quite a handful already.

VOR-DME writes:

> Too bad (for the rest of us) you won't give reality a chance.

Reality in this case is very expensive and inconvenient.

> That lowly C152, object of disdain, would put you flat on your pompous ass and
> face-to-face with reality in approximately 0min,0sec. But alas even this would
> not suffice to inspire humility and slow the affront of words to the wise
> (from the foolhardy).

A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).

> Do you often need a "rest" when flying the computer game?

I keep flights short so that I don't need to rest and I don't risk boredom. I
would do the same in real life.

> So much work?

Single-pilot IFR? Yup, it can be a lot of work. You have to stay ahead of the
aircraft or bad things happen--both in a simulator and in real life.

> Stress? When the autopilot is on, what's left?

Do you fly a lot of single-pilot IFR? Any time in jets?

writes:

> Maybe his lazy boy has a vibrator to simulate turbulence? I can say
> first hand that MSFS fails to simulate turbulence. I never had the
> keyboard, mouse or joy stick move from it's original position as I
> reach for it to make some type of control input adjustment.

MSFS simulates turbulence, but not with physical motion.

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,
>
> Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.

Give me an example.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Terrain avoidance is always your problem and it makes no difference whether
>> you are on or off of a Victor airway.
>>
>> In both cases you have to look at the Sectional and see what the minimum
>> altitude is for the route.
>
> The sectional doesn't give a minimum altitude for the route. That would be on
> the IFR charts.

Lack of understanding what is on a Sectional noted.

Lack of understanding how to do route planning noted.

>> It is impossible to do anything unsafe in a computer simulation of flight.
>>
>> No matter what you do, you are still sitting in a chair in front of a
>> computer screen.
>
> If you need the threat of harm from any mistakes you make just to get you to
> behave like a good pilot, there's a problem.

Delusional, irrelevant babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
>> determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
>> or off of a Victor airway.
>
> The minimum safe altitude for an airway isn't necessarily the same as the
> maximum elevation figure for the quadrant on the sectional. Furthermore,
> OROCAs on IFR charts are still different (with a more generous buffer).

Ice cream has no bones.

>> Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.
>
> Can you point me to some of them?

Google.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
>> screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.
>
> That's what simulation is all about. Try it.

It is the deluding yourself part that make you "special".

> When you watch a movie, you delude yourself into believing that what's
> happening on the screen is real ... otherwise it's impossible to enjoy the
> movie. So do you refuse to watch movies because they aren't real?

Are you insane?

Did your mother never teach you the difference between real and pretend?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,
>>
>> Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.
>
> Give me an example.

I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do flight
planning for the purpose of real flying.

Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't matter
where or how you "fly". It is just a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Well Blanche.

Blanche, I am with you on this one..

Mx's answer was correct and reasonable, unfortunately the drivel
follows....

We have a multi buck facility here that does just that, TRAIN THE
PILOTS IN SIMULATORS !!!

....SO THEY GET IT RIGHT before getting in the aircraft!

MX gets the point, peanut gallery = 0.

Once again, this proves you get the most noise from the emptiest
barrels......

.....stumbling over each other to slam him for being right, which he is
too often for their liking...

We had an IFR instructor here some years ago that was considered one
of the best, and he did not even have a pilots licence.

And he rarely even flew in an airplane!

....but he was one of the best IFR instructors ever.....

Cheers!

dave






On 04 May 2010 16:21:42 GMT, Blanche > wrote:

> > wrote:
>>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
>>>> it is just less than optimal.
>>>>
>>>> If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD->NYL->KMYF and
>>>> at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.
>>>
>>> KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
>>> route is actually longer than mine.
>>
>>Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.
>>
>>> Additionally, your route doesn't use any
>>> VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
>>> ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
>>> 6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
>>> are flying quite low.
>>
>>Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.
>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
>>> since the V66 route was designed by specialists.
>>
>>Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
>>KCHD->GBN->MOHAK->BZA->IPL-BARET->KMYF
>>
>>>> Going over GBN is not necessary.
>>>
>>> Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.
>>
>>Which is not the same as going over GBN.
>>
>>>> That's if I were using VOR navigation.
>>>
>>> Your route does not include any VORs.
>>
>>Wrong, NYL is a VOR.
>>
>>>> If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.
>>>>
>>>> Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
>>>> course to go direct to KMYF if possible.
>>>
>>> To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
>>> R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
>>> Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
>>> authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
>>> your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
>>> 1.6%.
>>
>>Big woof.
>>
>>I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
>>those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.
>>
>>What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
>>BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.
>>
>>Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
>>restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
>>POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
>>"checking enroute".
>>
>>And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
>>south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
>>areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.
>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
>>> than the normal V66 route.
>>
>>The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.
>>
>>The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
>>from the restricted areas.
>>
>>If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
>>the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
>>being unable to transition any of them.
>>
>>If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
>>I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.
>>
>>A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
>>appropriate for your equipment and skill level.
>
>Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
>skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
>It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.
>
>Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
>Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,
> >>
> >> Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.
> >
> > Give me an example.
>
> I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do flight
> planning for the purpose of real flying.
>
> Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't matter
> where or how you "fly". It is just a game.

In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a sectional and
see that this is true?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,
>> >>
>> >> Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.
>> >
>> > Give me an example.
>>
>> I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do flight
>> planning for the purpose of real flying.
>>
>> Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't matter
>> where or how you "fly". It is just a game.
>
> In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
> altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a sectional and
> see that this is true?

A while back you were saying the Victor airways do have published minimum
altitudes.

Have you changed your mind?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,
>> >>
>> >> Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.
>> >
>> > Give me an example.
>>
>> I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do
>> flight planning for the purpose of real flying.
>>
>> Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't
>> matter where or how you "fly". It is just a game.
>
> In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published
> minimum altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a
> sectional and see that this is true?

Huh?

In my sectionals the Legend says:

"Class E Airspace exists at 1200' AGL unless otherwise designated as
shown above."

together with:

"Class E Airspace low altitude Federal Airways are indicated by center
line."

So a Federal Airway is Class E, and between the text quoted above from
the Sectional Legend and the airspace markings on it, the base altitude
of the Victor airway appears "published" to me. Pick a spot on any airway
and you should be able to determine the base of Class E that marks its
base.

Anyway, according to Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, the base of
Class E is raised along many Victor airways in mountainous regions in
order to avoid terrain from blocking VOR signals, not so as to avoid
obstacles to flight.

I haven't followed this thread, but unless I've misread, one person
appears to be arguing for opposite assertions:

"Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,"
"[...] Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
altitudes."

In article >,
says...

>
>A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
>me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).

It would floor you.

>


>
>Single-pilot IFR? Yup, it can be a lot of work. You have to stay ahead of
the
>aircraft or bad things happen--both in a simulator and in real life.


Sorry to hear about the "bad things" that happen. Must be very distressing.



>
>Do you fly a lot of single-pilot IFR? Any time in jets?


Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?
As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR. My comments are from
experience, which is why the inappropriateness and incorrectness of your own
jumped out at me.

In article >,
says...

>
>The simulator doesn't allow that. Besides, flying a Citation X single-pilot
is
>quite a handful already.


Slow and safe, eh?
Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?
Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
requires two crew? That would be illegal and unsafe. Or, as you are fond
of saying, "Bad things happen..." Crew coordination and CRM are what it’s all
about flying a plane like the "X" and something tells me you would not be well
versed in these skills!

Or perhaps the toy simply puts you where you belong, in passenger mode, so you
can look out the window. In the lower portion of the screen you can see a fake
glass of champagne. Maybe way up in the corner of the screen you can just make
out a locked door. That’s the door that non-pilots like yourself never get to
see the other side of.

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
> they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.

UMMM WRONG.......

Flight planning DOES NOT stop after starting the engine. But it's
obvious you don't know this.

On May 5, 3:38*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> MSFS simulates turbulence, but not with physical motion.

Then it doesn't simulate turbulence does it? I have never been in
turbulence WITHOUT physical motion.

On May 6, 1:43*am, VOR-DME > wrote:

> Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?

Heh heh, this isn't the first time.....

> As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR.

Me too. It gets me that Mx thinks that MSFS simulates turbulence.
Now imagine that LOL

Gee, have you ever gotten the leans from MSFS. Not me!

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I plan as I would for a real-world flight and then fly that in the sim.

What flight planner do you use????

Rather than challenging real-world pilots about their own level of experience,
a bit more humility would have incited you to ask how many real pilots also
have experienced MSFS, and what their observations are. I’m sure there are
many present who have experienced this quirky simulation game, as I have. I
certainly cannot boast your own level of experience with it (wouldn’t admit it
if I could) but I have a huge advantage over you in that I had already been
flying airplanes (as well as real simulators) for years before I ever tried
MSFS, which allows me to discern what works and what doesn’t - something you
can only surmise or guess at.

MSFS is reasonably useful and fun for IFR recurrent training, tracking VOR’s
and airways, intercepts, etc. It is less useful for GPS navigation, as the
mock Garmin unit they propose is extremely feature-poor, and lacks many of the
pages and options pilots use every day. Perhaps these is why you resort
automatically to older VOR’s and airways, and consider ADS-B to be fiction,
because you have never seen what a real GPS does.

It is reasonably good at numbers flying, although the numbers are always "off"
a bit for any type of aircraft purportedly being flown, so you’ll just have to
learn the numbers for your MSFS install as if it were another plane. Probably
varies from one MSFS install to another, but then airplanes vary from one
another as well.

Landing MSFS is really hilarious, and is so far removed from landing any
airplane that it really only teaches you, well how to land MSFS. It is much
harder to land than any real plane, but not in any useful or constructive way.
What it is also really poor at is airplane control, particularly pitch
control. Flying a real King Air (or just about any other plane) in cruise and
rolling into a standard-rate turn, one rarely requires much pitch correction.
A quick glance at the VSI will tell you if you need some pitch input (or more
likely, whether you are already over-correcting) but unless you are holding
the turn for a long time very little input is needed. In the MSFS model of the
same plane (and other planes as well) as you roll into a standard rate turn
the airplane falls out of the sky! You have to haul back on it and add power
to maintain altitude. So it’s good for a laugh (games are made to have fun)
but it’s not a high-fidelity simulation.




In article >,
says...

>Do you fly a lot of single-pilot IFR? Any time in jets?

On May 6, 11:53*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> Rather than challenging real-world pilots about their own level of experience,
> a bit more humility would have incited you to ask how many real pilots also
> have experienced MSFS, and what their observations are. I’m sure there are
> many present who have experienced this quirky simulation game, as I have.

Well stated VOR-DME but I have been there and done this with Mx for
many years.

He actually thinks that MSFS looks as real as my videos I have posted
these past few years (his words). I know from these past years he
has a severe disconnect with reality when he says stuff like this

Dunno about you but when simming, I really never did an approach
briefing and a few other steps required in a real plane in the clag
that simply is not replicated on a desktop simulator.

I stress desktop as a full motion sim is as real as it gets as you
have physical interaction based on your inputs. This is simply not
there with a joystick, keyboard and mouse as you brought you in your
King Air example..

I have said the same thing you have time over time with Mx, for
learning the procedures needed to operate in the IFR environment, MSFS
will do great, and I will even go as far as say it does great when you
simulate a vacuum or some other systems failure, but when the rubber
meets the road, MSFS is just exactly what you describe it as and that
is a game.

I have used MSFS to mentally get myself ready for an approach at an
airport I never been to so I can get the fixes stamped into my simple
mind but certainly it sure doesn't replace that approach briefing in
the plane.

Flying the skies as we do isn't as simple as escape and start over.
Bad things happen in the skies, not MSFS. Worst thing that happens in
MSFS is you push escape and start over (or even resume from a fix
where things didn't go as you expected)

My Sundowner did not have a undo feature. LOL

I asked Mx a direct question but he never answers. My lastest
question is what does he use for flight planning. If history repeats
itself, he won't answer.

writes:

> Flight planning DOES NOT stop after starting the engine. But it's
> obvious you don't know this.

How do you plan for clouds that you don't even know exist? And if you can
perform that magic, why can't you look up the frequencies for navaids as you
incorporate them into your flight plan?

writes:

> What flight planner do you use????

I use NACO charts, ADDS weather, real-world filed flight plans, and other
sources of information.

Well, that's too bad, because he's not stupid at all.
Just a very non-constructive attitude that prevents him from acheiving any
in-depth understanding of aviation, or probably much else.
Perhaps it's just his fear of airplanes and flying that prevent him from going
any further...



In article >,
says...
>

>
>Well stated VOR-DME but I have been there and done this with Mx for
>many years.
>
>He actually thinks that MSFS looks as real as my videos I have posted
>these past few years (his words). I know from these past years he
>has a severe disconnect with reality when he says stuff like this
>
>Dunno about you but when simming, I really never did an approach
>briefing and a few other steps required in a real plane in the clag
>that simply is not replicated on a desktop simulator.
>
>I stress desktop as a full motion sim is as real as it gets as you
>have physical interaction based on your inputs. This is simply not
>there with a joystick, keyboard and mouse as you brought you in your
>King Air example..
>
>I have said the same thing you have time over time with Mx, for
>learning the procedures needed to operate in the IFR environment, MSFS
>will do great, and I will even go as far as say it does great when you
>simulate a vacuum or some other systems failure, but when the rubber
>meets the road, MSFS is just exactly what you describe it as and that
>is a game.
>
>I have used MSFS to mentally get myself ready for an approach at an
>airport I never been to so I can get the fixes stamped into my simple
>mind but certainly it sure doesn't replace that approach briefing in
>the plane.
>
>Flying the skies as we do isn't as simple as escape and start over.
>Bad things happen in the skies, not MSFS. Worst thing that happens in
>MSFS is you push escape and start over (or even resume from a fix
>where things didn't go as you expected)
>
>My Sundowner did not have a undo feature. LOL
>
>I asked Mx a direct question but he never answers. My lastest
>question is what does he use for flight planning. If history repeats
>itself, he won't answer.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> What flight planner do you use????
>
> I use NACO charts, ADDS weather, real-world filed flight plans, and other
> sources of information.

Or, in other words, you don't use a flight planner.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 6, 2:40*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Flight planning DOES NOT stop after starting the engine. *But it's
> > obvious you don't know this.
>
> How do you plan for clouds that you don't even know exist?

I gave you the answer above......

On May 6, 2:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What flight planner do you use????
>
> I use NACO charts, ADDS weather, real-world filed flight plans, and other
> sources of information.

Then you would never make it in the real world. The above is not all
there is to flight planning.

On May 6, 2:40*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>why can't you look up the frequencies for navaids as you
> incorporate them into your flight plan?

My flight planner does this.

On May 6, 8:37*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:

> A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
> me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).

Riiiight.
And how many hours do you have on type ?

On May 6, 4:30*pm, george > wrote:
> On May 6, 8:37*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > VOR-DME writes:
> > A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
> > me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).
>
> Riiiight.
> And how many hours do you have on type ?

I wonder if those sims allow you to land
on 2 wheels in a crosswind.(like i did today)

---
Mark

VOR-DME writes:

> Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?

Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't include a Cessna Citation among its
aircraft. It's only available as an add-on (from at least two companies).

> Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
> requires two crew?

Not in real life--that would be illegal and unsafe, as you observe. But I do
it cheerfully in simulation. I don't have much choice with the version of MSFS
I'm using. FSX allows two people to share a cockpit but I wouldn't want to do
that.

> Crew coordination and CRM are what it’s all
> about flying a plane like the "X" and something tells me you would not be well
> versed in these skills!

Nothing tells you that. It's simply something you'd like to believe.

How many hours do you have in the Citation X, by the way?

> Maybe way up in the corner of the screen you can just make
> out a locked door. That’s the door that non-pilots like yourself never get to
> see the other side of.

I don't think the cockpit door locks, but it might. I just leave the door
open.

Your attempts to belittle me are predicated upon some false assumptions about
my own attitudes towards aviation and simulation. As a result, you are wasting
your time engaging in them. I don't fly to bolster my own self-esteem, nor do
I see flying as doing that, in real life or in simulation. It's just a fun
activity.

writes:

> Then it doesn't simulate turbulence does it?

Yes, it does. You can see the effect on instruments and on the view out the
window. Some fancy configurations with motion bases linked to the sim will
actually move, but most people don't go to that extreme with home sims.

VOR-DME writes:

> It would floor you.

Believe what you will. Flying an airplane is not that difficult for me. I
suppose it might be difficult for others.

> Sorry to hear about the "bad things" that happen. Must be very distressing.

It can be, if you take your flight simulation seriously, as I do.

> Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?

I'll take that as a "no."

> As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR.

In which jet?

> My comments are from experience, which is why the inappropriateness
> and incorrectness of your own jumped out at me.

Beware of experience. Good experience is valuable, bad experience is
dangerous.

VOR-DME writes:

> Rather than challenging real-world pilots about their own level of experience,
> a bit more humility would have incited you to ask how many real pilots also
> have experienced MSFS, and what their observations are.

There are a lot of fragile egos in this group, most of them highly vocal in
their attempts to protect their self-esteem.

For me, flying is a fun activity, not a crutch to support or protect the ego.
Thus, comments about "humility" mean nothing to me, because this is something
that affects the ego in my view. I feel sorry for people who must depend on
their piloting experience to reinforce their sense of self-worth. I also think
that people like this make poor pilots, because the self-esteem issues may
cloud their judgement.

Anyway, people in this category invariably dismiss MSFS. I do know real-world
pilots who think it's great (not as great as flying a real plane, of course,
but still the next best thing), but they don't have ego issues. They just like
to fly.

What simulation gives you depends on what you want to get from it. You can
sit around the house and pine for the next hour you'll be able to fly in a
rented plane, or you can enjoy your spare time between real flights using
simulation.

I've already explained the analogy with movies. It's also a bit like watching
sports on TV. Some people like to watch sports when they are not
participating; there are even people who only like to watch, and never
participate. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so. Watching
something isn't as fun as doing it in simulation, in my opinion, but more
people watch sports than simulate them.

> I’m sure there are
> many present who have experienced this quirky simulation game, as I have. I
> certainly cannot boast your own level of experience with it (wouldn’t admit it
> if I could) but I have a huge advantage over you in that I had already been
> flying airplanes (as well as real simulators) for years before I ever tried
> MSFS, which allows me to discern what works and what doesn’t - something you
> can only surmise or guess at.

It's the imagined advantage that is important to you, isn't it? It's
important to think that you are somehow "better" than I am, isn't it?

Most ego-handicapped pilots are extremely wary of developing any interest in
simulation, for reasons already mentioned above. They don't investigate the
game much because of this fear. It is possible, however, to improve the
simulation by orders of magnitude at low cost (not that the basic simulation
isn't enjoyable or realistic).

> MSFS is reasonably useful and fun for IFR recurrent training, tracking VOR’s
> and airways, intercepts, etc. It is less useful for GPS navigation, as the
> mock Garmin unit they propose is extremely feature-poor, and lacks many of the
> pages and options pilots use every day.

Thank you for demonstrating the point I just made. Most serious simmers have
forgotten how to even look at the default GPS unit in the sim. And many larger
aircraft have no GPS units like this.

> Perhaps these is why you resort
> automatically to older VOR’s and airways, and consider ADS-B to be fiction,
> because you have never seen what a real GPS does.

No, I resort to airway because that's how aircraft are flown in real life. In
several of the aircraft I fly on the sim, we use flight management systems,
anyway, as in real life.

> It is reasonably good at numbers flying, although the numbers are always "off"
> a bit for any type of aircraft purportedly being flown, so you’ll just have to
> learn the numbers for your MSFS install as if it were another plane. Probably
> varies from one MSFS install to another, but then airplanes vary from one
> another as well.

The numbers don't vary by installation, but yes, they do vary by airplane, as
in real life. How accurate the simulation is depends on how much care has been
put into the aircraft model. The default aircraft are reasonably accurate
(especially on a fast PC), but are simplified somewhat to avoid discouraging a
large chunk of the user base. Add-on aircraft (from some companies--it depends
on their chosen emphasis) do not compromise in this way.

> Landing MSFS is really hilarious, and is so far removed from landing any
> airplane that it really only teaches you, well how to land MSFS.

Again, it depends on the airplane--and on the realism sliders, which some
users never touch.

The main problem real pilots have with MSFS, especially those who fly small
aircraft VFR, is that there are no motion cues. However, it's easy to adapt.
As long as the machine is reasonably fast, a real pilot can learn to land well
in a few minutes.

> It is much harder to land than any real plane ...

Depends on how fast the machine is, and how dependent the pilot is on motion
cues. Obviously an experienced IFR pilot has a great advantage here.

> What it is also really poor at is airplane control, particularly pitch
> control.

That depends on the controls you use, and the speed of the PC.

> Flying a real King Air (or just about any other plane) in cruise and
> rolling into a standard-rate turn, one rarely requires much pitch correction.
> A quick glance at the VSI will tell you if you need some pitch input (or more
> likely, whether you are already over-correcting) but unless you are holding
> the turn for a long time very little input is needed. In the MSFS model of the
> same plane (and other planes as well) as you roll into a standard rate turn
> the airplane falls out of the sky! You have to haul back on it and add power
> to maintain altitude. So it’s good for a laugh (games are made to have fun)
> but it’s not a high-fidelity simulation.

I've never flown the King Air. These days, I don't fly any of the default
aircraft. Most serious simmers don't.

writes:

> He actually thinks that MSFS looks as real as my videos I have posted
> these past few years (his words).

I am regularly surprised by how real MSFS looks, given that it's just a
desktop simulator. And I don't use the scenery add-ons that some simmers use,
except for airports.

> Dunno about you but when simming, I really never did an approach
> briefing and a few other steps required in a real plane in the clag
> that simply is not replicated on a desktop simulator.

I have. It improves the experience. Of course, the advantage to simulation is
that you can skip this if you're not in the mood.

> I stress desktop as a full motion sim is as real as it gets as you
> have physical interaction based on your inputs. This is simply not
> there with a joystick, keyboard and mouse as you brought you in your
> King Air example..

I know from your past posts that you depend a great deal on motion; apparently
that's an important part of the flying experience for you. You even rely on it
too much for IFR, as I recall, which may lead to unpleasantness one day.

> I have said the same thing you have time over time with Mx, for
> learning the procedures needed to operate in the IFR environment, MSFS
> will do great, and I will even go as far as say it does great when you
> simulate a vacuum or some other systems failure, but when the rubber
> meets the road, MSFS is just exactly what you describe it as and that
> is a game.

It's unfortunate that you have this attitude. You're depriving yourself of
much enjoyment.

Do you ever go to the movies or watch sports on TV?

> I have used MSFS to mentally get myself ready for an approach at an
> airport I never been to so I can get the fixes stamped into my simple
> mind ...

Good!

> Flying the skies as we do isn't as simple as escape and start over.
> Bad things happen in the skies, not MSFS. Worst thing that happens in
> MSFS is you push escape and start over (or even resume from a fix
> where things didn't go as you expected)

As I've said, it depends on how seriously you take your simulation. If you're
not good at taking it seriously, or if you don't want to, you learn
considerably less from it.

> I asked Mx a direct question but he never answers. My lastest
> question is what does he use for flight planning. If history repeats
> itself, he won't answer.

I believe I said that I use NACO charts and plates and online aviation weather
reports. That's good enough for simulation--I have no legal requirement to use
specially certified sources.

writes:

> A while back you were saying the Victor airways do have published minimum
> altitudes.

They do, but these altitudes are shown only on IFR charts, not sectionals.

Jim Logajan writes:

> In my sectionals the Legend says:
>
> "Class E Airspace exists at 1200' AGL unless otherwise designated as
> shown above."
>
> together with:
>
> "Class E Airspace low altitude Federal Airways are indicated by center
> line."
>
> So a Federal Airway is Class E, and between the text quoted above from
> the Sectional Legend and the airspace markings on it, the base altitude
> of the Victor airway appears "published" to me. Pick a spot on any airway
> and you should be able to determine the base of Class E that marks its
> base.

Where can I find the MEA of V134 between PACES and SLOLM on the sectional
chart?

> Anyway, according to Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, the base of
> Class E is raised along many Victor airways in mountainous regions in
> order to avoid terrain from blocking VOR signals, not so as to avoid
> obstacles to flight.

The base of Class E is is not necessarily the minimum altitude for an airway
within that airspace.

However, there may be some confusion here. If you fly VFR, all you have to do
is stay clear of terrain and obstacles, which you can do most of the time by
just looking out the window. The sectional will give you an idea of terrain
beneath you, although if you are looking at the sectional for this information
in flight, you're probably not in VMC any more. The sectionals don't actually
indicate the altitudes that you must fly, though--you have to infer this from
other information on the chart.

If you fly IFR, you must maintain minimum altitudes on airways, and you cannot
find these on the sectionals (the sectionals don't give any minimum altitudes
for airways). Instead, you look at an IFR chart, which does indicate the
minimum altitude for each portion of an airway. The IFR minimums are usually
more generous than you might fly when under VFR.

In good weather in areas with high altitudes, I may fly VFR in order to be
able to avoid the generous MEAs that would be required for IFR (and thereby
avoid the need for oxygen). In mountainous areas, though, this advantage must
be balanced against the specific risks of mountain flying.

In article >,
says...

>
>Your attempts to belittle me are predicated upon some false assumptions about
>my own attitudes towards aviation and simulation. As a result, you are
wasting
>your time engaging in them.


For once I fully agree with you, in that I am wasting my time.
Just to be clear with you, I did not, as you believe, criticize your initial
response simply "because it was you" and everyone wants to pick on you. Matter
of fact, I almost always avoid any temptation to respond to you, as I already
know you have no interest in genuine discussion, are only here to attempt to
belittle others of far greater merit than yourself, and turn every
conversation into vituperative drivel. Despite this knowledge, I chose to
respond as someone was writing for advice, and I felt the response you gave
was uninformed, incomplete and a disservice to the contributor who asked the
question, and who may not know that you don’t know anything of what you speak.

I am satisfied you have once again demonstrated your staggering ignorance of
"the way things work" in a very large number of posts in this thread, as well
as your wholesale intellectual dishonesty in an unending stream of
self-contradictions and passive-aggressive attacks. I am truly not interested
in the type of dead-end, semantic quagmire that discourse with you always
entails, and further it is a huge disservice to the group, to whom I offer my
apology. As stated, I only got involved this time because of the uninformed
advice you offered another, as if you knew something, and with that I am going
to take your excellent advice and stop wasting my time.

Again, to RAP, my apology. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

writes:

> I gave you the answer above......

You cannot plan for things you don't know about. Not even a Real Pilot can do
that, except in the movies.

writes:

> My flight planner does this.

I hope she is well paid.

writes:

> Or, in other words, you don't use a flight planner.

No, I don't. So what?

writes:

> Then you would never make it in the real world. The above is not all
> there is to flight planning.

In simulation, you plan as much or as little as you want. How much I plan
depends on my mood and how much time I have. There's a trade-off between
realism and the effort required to achieve it.

VOR-DME writes:

> Just a very non-constructive attitude that prevents him from acheiving any
> in-depth understanding of aviation, or probably much else.

Actually just a refusal to submit to people who want to believe themselves
superior.

> Perhaps it's just his fear of airplanes and flying that prevent him from going
> any further...

But I don't have a fear of airplanes. It's more a question of money and time,
and for actually being a pilot, health.

george writes:

> And how many hours do you have on type ?

On the Cessna 152? Not many; I don't log my hours, so I'm not sure.

It's fun sometimes when you want to "rough it" like poor PPLs have to do, but
in simulation you have a very wide choice of aircraft, so there's no reason to
fly only the small stuff.

My 152 has no autopilot, and is missing some other things that I like, so
there's a limit to how much I can fly around in it before I long for something
a bit more sophisticated. It's good only for very short trips.

VOR-DME writes:

> Just to be clear with you, I did not, as you believe, criticize your initial
> response simply "because it was you" and everyone wants to pick on you.

Right.

Actually, most people don't want to pick on me, but those who do are unable to
control themselves.

> Despite this knowledge, I chose to
> respond as someone was writing for advice, and I felt the response you gave
> was uninformed, incomplete and a disservice to the contributor who asked the
> question, and who may not know that you don’t know anything of what you speak.

I could have given any response, and you would have taken issue with it.

I've previously cut and pasted text from undeniably reliable sources in posts
of my own to this newsgroup, just to see what happens, and invariably the
treehouse club feels obliged to take issue with them, even though I'm
repeating something word for word from another source, one before which they'd
readily genuflect had the post been under the original source's name (people
who are mean towards those whom they consider inferior also tend to be
exceedingly obsequious towards those whom they consider superior). This proved
that they were attacking the messenger, not the message, despite all their
claims to the contrary.

> I am satisfied you have once again demonstrated your staggering ignorance of
> "the way things work" in a very large number of posts in this thread, as well
> as your wholesale intellectual dishonesty in an unending stream of
> self-contradictions and passive-aggressive attacks. I am truly not interested
> in the type of dead-end, semantic quagmire that discourse with you always
> entails, and further it is a huge disservice to the group, to whom I offer my
> apology. As stated, I only got involved this time because of the uninformed
> advice you offered another, as if you knew something, and with that I am going
> to take your excellent advice and stop wasting my time.

You've spent a lot of time criticizing me, and very little addressing the OP's
question, which rather belies your claim.

> Again, to RAP, my apology. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

It will happen again. It always does. I know the pattern well.

Perhaps if this group were less a battle of egos among a small group of
testosterone-soaked males, and more a discussion of a love of aviation, the
noise level would be lower. But this phenomenon exists in just about every
discussion venue I've ever seen, so I'm not optimistic.

On May 7, 1:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I gave you the answer above......
>
> You cannot plan for things you don't know about.

Exactly but the planning doesn't stop.... I speak from the real
world....

On May 7, 1:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > My flight planner does this.
>
> I hope she is well paid.

Nope. I do it all myself. Obviously you know nothing about flight
planning or you wouldn't have come up with a response like this.

On May 7, 1:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> In simulation, you plan as much or as little as you want. *How much I plan
> depends on my mood and how much time I have. There's a trade-off between
> realism and the effort required to achieve it.

So you don't know anything about flight planning apparently and not
qualified to give pilots advice on routing are you?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Or, in other words, you don't use a flight planner.
>
> No, I don't. So what?

So do you at least use real, printed to the proper scale, TAC's, Sectionals,
and WAC's?

And if you did us a flight planner, you would understand why your babbling
about looking up navaid frequencies is babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then you would never make it in the real world. The above is not all
>> there is to flight planning.
>
> In simulation, you plan as much or as little as you want. How much I plan
> depends on my mood and how much time I have. There's a trade-off between
> realism and the effort required to achieve it.

And yet you go on and on about how you feel it is important to fly "safe"
while playing with your simulation...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?
>
> Microsoft Flight Simulator doesn't include a Cessna Citation among its
> aircraft. It's only available as an add-on (from at least two companies).
>
>> Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
>> requires two crew?
>
> Not in real life--that would be illegal and unsafe, as you observe. But I do
> it cheerfully in simulation.

And yet you go on and on about how "safe" a pilot you are and how you would
never do anythin "unsafe" while playing your game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> It would floor you.
>
> Believe what you will. Flying an airplane is not that difficult for me. I
> suppose it might be difficult for others.
>
>> Sorry to hear about the "bad things" that happen. Must be very distressing.
>
> It can be, if you take your flight simulation seriously, as I do.

If you really took it seriously you would put the same effort a real pilot
does in flight planning and not "fly" airplanes that require a crew solo.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I believe I said that I use NACO charts and plates and online aviation weather
> reports. That's good enough for simulation--I have no legal requirement to use
> specially certified sources.

No one said anything about "specially certified sources".

You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
than real pilots.

Yet your flight planning is "good enough".

Yeah, right.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 7, 1:01*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Then it doesn't simulate turbulence does it?
>
> Yes, it does. You can see the effect on instruments and on the view out the
> window.

No it doesn't...... You THINK it does, but I know.

Remember, I use MSFS and I fly a real plane. I talk from experience.
The effect MSFS simply is not the same.

Can you qualify your experience comparing the real world and MSFS???
Exactly what is your experience to make you think MSFS accurately
simulates turbulence.

Let me guess, you won't answer.

On May 7, 1:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's unfortunate that you have this attitude. You're depriving yourself of
> much enjoyment.

How do you know what I enjoy? You don't fly a plane??????

Lets see

Choice A. sit at my desktop computer and play on MSFS
Choice B Go to the airport and fly a real plane and touch real
clouds.

Survey says......

On May 7, 1:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> No, I resort to airway because that's how aircraft are flown in real life..

WRONG. WRONG WRONG.

Don't believe me, look up what used to be my tail number N1943L. You
don't get any real then that.

You have no clue what the real life flying is all about.

On May 7, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> My 152 has no autopilot, and is missing some other things that I like, so
> there's a limit to how much I can fly around in it before I long for something
> a bit more sophisticated. It's good only for very short trips.

Why not be honest rather then lie? You don't have a 152.

You have MSFS with a 152 add on.

First sentence if you were truthful would read My MSFS 152 has no
autopilot.

On May 8, 5:37*am, " > wrote:
> On May 7, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > My 152 has no autopilot, and is missing some other things that I like, so
> > there's a limit to how much I can fly around in it before I long for something
> > a bit more sophisticated. It's good only for very short trips.
>
> Why not be honest rather then lie? *You don't have a 152.
>
> You have MSFS with a 152 add on.
>
> First sentence if you were truthful would read My MSFS 152 has no
> autopilot.

The ones I flew didn't have an autopilot either but then that was real
life..
You're asking mixedup to make an honest statement ?
Good luck

writes:

> Exactly but the planning doesn't stop.... I speak from the real
> world....

It may not stop, but it has nothing to do with things you cannot foresee and
things you do not know.

writes:

> Nope. I do it all myself. Obviously you know nothing about flight
> planning or you wouldn't have come up with a response like this.

To those who can only see one thing at a time, everything is "obvious."

writes:

> So do you at least use real, printed to the proper scale, TAC's, Sectionals,
> and WAC's?

I look at them online. They are direct scans from paper, right down to the
halftone screens.

> And if you did us a flight planner, you would understand why your babbling
> about looking up navaid frequencies is babble.

Nothing obligates me to use a flight planner. Pilots have been flying for a
hundred years without one.

writes:

> So you don't know anything about flight planning apparently and not
> qualified to give pilots advice on routing are you?

I have no idea how you reached this conclusion, so I cannot comment.

writes:

> And yet you go on and on about how you feel it is important to fly "safe"
> while playing with your simulation...

Yes, safety is an important part of simulation for me.

writes:

> And yet you go on and on about how "safe" a pilot you are and how you would
> never do anythin "unsafe" while playing your game.

Single-pilot IFR is sometimes merely illegal rather than demonstrably unsafe.
And in any case, if I can fly successfully single-pilot in simulation, I can
certainly fly successfully with a copilot in real life.

writes:

> No it doesn't...... You THINK it does, but I know.

The instruments and the view both move. Thus, turbulence is simulated.

> Remember, I use MSFS and I fly a real plane. I talk from experience.
> The effect MSFS simply is not the same.

You just said it didn't simulate turbulence. Now you say that the effect is
not the same. How can there be an effect in the absence of a simulation?

> Can you qualify your experience comparing the real world and MSFS???

I've been in turbulence in the real world, too.

> Exactly what is your experience to make you think MSFS accurately
> simulates turbulence.

I've experienced movement in vehicles before, including airplanes. You seem to
believe that there's some magic that I'm missing, which is not the case.

writes:

> If you really took it seriously you would put the same effort a real pilot
> does in flight planning and not "fly" airplanes that require a crew solo.

Sometimes I do put real effort into flight planning ... occasionally more than
many real pilots do (quite a few Sunday pilots are very poor planners).

The simulator doesn't give me the option of taking on a copilot, and I
wouldn't want to bother with that, anyway. The workload is higher with a
single pilot, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done.

writes:

> No one said anything about "specially certified sources".

If you don't use certified sources, you could be violating the FARs.

> You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
> than real pilots.

Safer than _some_ real pilots, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

> Yet your flight planning is "good enough".

You match the planning to the objectives.

writes:

> How do you know what I enjoy? You don't fly a plane??????

We were talking about simulators.

> Choice A. sit at my desktop computer and play on MSFS
> Choice B Go to the airport and fly a real plane and touch real
> clouds.
>
> Survey says......

(A) is a lot cheaper and easier than (B).

writes:

> WRONG. WRONG WRONG.

Writing in uppercase doesn't make you right.

> Don't believe me, look up what used to be my tail number N1943L. You
> don't get any real then that.

It's real, just not typical. Most pilots know about other types of navigation
besides Direct-To.

writes:

> Why not be honest rather then lie? You don't have a 152.

But I do. It's one of many aircraft I have on the sim.

> You have MSFS with a 152 add on.

Yes, same thing.

> First sentence if you were truthful would read My MSFS 152 has no
> autopilot.

Same thing.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So do you at least use real, printed to the proper scale, TAC's, Sectionals,
>> and WAC's?
>
> I look at them online. They are direct scans from paper, right down to the
> halftone screens.

Looking at a not-to-scale scan of a chart on a computer screen is not
preparing a flight plan by any stretch of the imagination.

Go to http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/VFRFlightPlanner/ and
will find 3 versions of a flight planner form in PDF.

Download any version you want and print it out.

Once you have filled one completely out, you have prepared a flight plan.

>> And if you did us a flight planner, you would understand why your babbling
>> about looking up navaid frequencies is babble.
>
> Nothing obligates me to use a flight planner. Pilots have been flying for a
> hundred years without one.

No one said anything about you being obligated to use a flight planner,
and no one is.

What was said is that if you did, you would understand why your babbling
about looking up navaid frequencies is babble.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 7, 3:47*pm, george > wrote:

> You're asking mixedup to make an honest statement ?
> Good luck

This is the root of the problem. He is lying by saying he flies a 152
and now getting called out to carpet and not admitting to it. Yep,
major disconnect from reality.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So you don't know anything about flight planning apparently and not
>> qualified to give pilots advice on routing are you?
>
> I have no idea how you reached this conclusion, so I cannot comment.

Because it is obvious you have never done any real flight planning in
your life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And yet you go on and on about how you feel it is important to fly "safe"
>> while playing with your simulation...
>
> Yes, safety is an important part of simulation for me.

Yet you short cut the first, and one of the most important, tasks you must do
to fly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 7, 4:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> It's real, just not typical.

WRONG WRONG and WRONG.

YOU SAID

> No, I resort to airway because that's how aircraft are flown in real life..

I provided proof that you are WRONG.

I again fly in the real world. WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE REAL
WORLD????????????????????????

LET ME GUESS YOU WON'T ANSWER THE DIRECT QUESTION AS USUAL.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And yet you go on and on about how "safe" a pilot you are and how you would
>> never do anythin "unsafe" while playing your game.
>
> Single-pilot IFR is sometimes merely illegal rather than demonstrably unsafe.
> And in any case, if I can fly successfully single-pilot in simulation, I can
> certainly fly successfully with a copilot in real life.

Flying solo in an aircraft that requires a crew is unsafe.

Flying anything without doing complete flight planning is unsafe.

And both are illegal.

Yet you go on and on about how "safe" a pilot you are and how you would
never do anythin "unsafe" while playing your game and that your game is
just like the real thing.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you really took it seriously you would put the same effort a real pilot
>> does in flight planning and not "fly" airplanes that require a crew solo.
>
> Sometimes I do put real effort into flight planning ...

That would be impossible as you have already said you don't use a flight
planner and you don't have to scale printed charts.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No one said anything about "specially certified sources".
>
> If you don't use certified sources, you could be violating the FARs.

Gibbering nonsense that just shows again you haven't a clue about how to
do real flight planning.

>> You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
>> than real pilots.
>
> Safer than _some_ real pilots, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
than real pilots who really do flight planning.

>> Yet your flight planning is "good enough".
>
> You match the planning to the objectives.

If the objective is to play a game, then indeed you need not do any flight
planning.

If the objective is to really simulate flying, then you need to do the
same flight planning you would do for real flight.

So your objective is obviously to play a game.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> WRONG. WRONG WRONG.
>
> Writing in uppercase doesn't make you right.
>
>> Don't believe me, look up what used to be my tail number N1943L. You
>> don't get any real then that.
>
> It's real, just not typical. Most pilots know about other types of navigation
> besides Direct-To.

The choices are not just airways or direct to.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 7, 4:00*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > So you don't know anything about flight planning apparently and not
> > qualified to give pilots advice on routing are you?
>
> I have no idea how you reached this conclusion, so I cannot comment.

You don't plan for a flight, YOU DON'T USE A FLIGHT PLANNER, you
already have shown you don't know how to plan for a flight

How much clearer can that be????

On May 7, 3:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> It may not stop, but it has nothing to do with things you cannot foresee and
> things you do not know.

Yep, total disconnect from the real world. Good one Mx.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>VOR-DME writes:
>
>> Just a very non-constructive attitude that prevents him from acheiving any
>> in-depth understanding of aviation, or probably much else.
>
>Actually just a refusal to submit to people who want to believe themselves
>superior.
>
>> Perhaps it's just his fear of airplanes and flying that prevent him from
going
>> any further...
>
>But I don't have a fear of airplanes. It's more a question of money and time,
>and for actually being a pilot, health.



I'm sorry to hear it if there's a health issue involved in not flying, and I'm
sincere in that.

writes:

> Looking at a not-to-scale scan of a chart on a computer screen is not
> preparing a flight plan by any stretch of the imagination.

The relative scale is preserved on the screen, although I don't actually
measure anything on the screen.

> Go to http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/VFRFlightPlanner/ and
> will find 3 versions of a flight planner form in PDF.

There's no point in me filling out a form on paper, or even filling it out
online, as there's nowhere to send it.

I know what official flight plans are supposed to look like. I have no use for
them in simulation, though. I do, however, file online flight plans when I'm
flying online.

writes:

> Flying solo in an aircraft that requires a crew is unsafe.

Not necessarily. If an aircraft can be flown by one person but the
manufacturer has not applied to have it certified for single-pilot flight, it
isn't unsafe, it's just illegal.

> Flying anything without doing complete flight planning is unsafe.

Define "complete."

> And both are illegal.

A flight plan need not be complete to be legal. Indeed, you don't have to file
anything at all for VFR in the U.S (usually). And how much planning you do is
up to you, as long as you don't seem negligent in the event of an accident.

Safety is a separate issue.

I try to simulate both, but again it depends on the circumstances and my mood.
Filling out paperwork is not a fun part of aviation for me.

writes:

> That would be impossible as you have already said you don't use a flight
> planner and you don't have to scale printed charts.

Neither is necessary for safe planning.

VOR-DME writes:

> I'm sorry to hear it if there's a health issue involved in not flying, and I'm
> sincere in that.

I'm not too happy about it, either. I haven't actually applied for a medical,
but I'm not optimistic. As long as the FAA continues to treat pilots like
astronauts, medicals will be a problem.

writes:

> Gibbering nonsense that just shows again you haven't a clue about how to
> do real flight planning.

If you use a map in crayon provided to you by a friend, you're not using a
certified source. If something happens on the flight, your failure to use a
certified source could be held against you by the FAA.

> You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
> than real pilots who really do flight planning.

Safer than _some_ pilots who really do flight planning.

> If the objective is to really simulate flying, then you need to do the
> same flight planning you would do for real flight.

That depends on the part of flying that I wish to simulate. I simulate
planning to the extent that it affects safety, usually, but I don't try to
simulate any additional overhead that wouldn't be germane to that objective.

Indeed, one of the great advantages of simulation is not having to bother with
useless paperwork.

writes:

> The choices are not just airways or direct to.

True, but airways are very frequently used. Not every pilot has an ax to
grind.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Looking at a not-to-scale scan of a chart on a computer screen is not
>> preparing a flight plan by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> The relative scale is preserved on the screen, although I don't actually
> measure anything on the screen.

Then you are not doing flight planning.

>> Go to http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/VFRFlightPlanner/ and
>> will find 3 versions of a flight planner form in PDF.
>
> There's no point in me filling out a form on paper, or even filling it out
> online, as there's nowhere to send it.

Babble.

You print out the form, fill it out, usually in pencil, put it on your knee
board, carry it with you while you fly, and make entries on it while you fly.

The making entries while you fly part is one of the things the other person
was alluding to when he said the flight planning ends when the engine is
shut down.

Your idiotic comments just further prove you haven't the slightest clue
what the terms "flight planning" and "flight planner" mean.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A flight plan need not be complete to be legal. Indeed, you don't have to file
> anything at all for VFR in the U.S (usually). And how much planning you do is
> up to you, as long as you don't seem negligent in the event of an accident.

Filing a flight plan is just a small part of flight planning, and no, how
much planning you do is not up to the pilot.

But again, your babbling nonsense just proves once again you have no clue
what the term "flight planning" and "flight planner" mean.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> That would be impossible as you have already said you don't use a flight
>> planner and you don't have to scale printed charts.
>
> Neither is necessary for safe planning.

One or the other is required to do flight planning.

Yet again you show you haven't a clue what the term "flight planning" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Gibbering nonsense that just shows again you haven't a clue about how to
>> do real flight planning.
>
> If you use a map in crayon provided to you by a friend, you're not using a
> certified source. If something happens on the flight, your failure to use a
> certified source could be held against you by the FAA.

Yet more gibberning nonsense.

>> You've raved on and on time and again about how "safe" you are; "safer"
>> than real pilots who really do flight planning.
>
> Safer than _some_ pilots who really do flight planning.
>
>> If the objective is to really simulate flying, then you need to do the
>> same flight planning you would do for real flight.
>
> That depends on the part of flying that I wish to simulate. I simulate
> planning to the extent that it affects safety, usually, but I don't try to
> simulate any additional overhead that wouldn't be germane to that objective.
>
> Indeed, one of the great advantages of simulation is not having to bother with
> useless paperwork.

Yet more gibberish that shows once again you have no clue what the term
"flight planning" means or why it is done.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The choices are not just airways or direct to.
>
> True, but airways are very frequently used.

Partly true, but not for the reasons you think and irrelevant to the discussion.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 7, 9:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
> > I'm sorry to hear it if there's a health issue involved in not flying, and I'm
> > sincere in that.
>
> I'm not too happy about it, either. I haven't actually applied for a medical,
> but I'm not optimistic. As long as the FAA continues to treat pilots like
> astronauts, medicals will be a problem.

AGAIN, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Uhhh sports pilot category. You only making an excuse not to fly a
real plane.

And if you are not in the country FAA IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

writes:

> Uhhh sports pilot category.

I don't want to be a sport pilot. Too many restrictions to make it worthwhile.

> And if you are not in the country FAA IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

I'm not interested in flying outside of the U.S., and other countries are
often just as bad or worse with their regulations as is the FAA. In fact, the
FAA is fairly liberal among developed countries, in many ways.

I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
MX. I am going to block you.

Start posting under a new screen name when you decide to grow up.
--
Jim in NC

On May 8, 8:15*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Uhhh sports pilot category.
>
> I don't want to be a sport pilot. Too many restrictions to make it worthwhile.

There are former fighter pilots who are satisfied with LS.
138 mph will get you there faster than you think, and do
you really think you'd need to go higher than 10,000 ft?

http://www.flylightning.net/

---
Mark

On May 8, 8:47*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
> MX. *I am going to block you.
>
> Start posting under a new screen name when you decide to grow up.
> --
> Jim in NC

Well I hope you would never consider blocking
me and Ari. It's a safety issue.

---
Mark

Morgans writes:

> I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
> MX. I am going to block you.

Promises, promises. We'll see how long you can resist not seeing my posts.

On May 8, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
> > I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> > reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
> > MX. *I am going to block you.
>
> Promises, promises. We'll see how long you can resist not seeing my posts..

Ego, thy RAP persona is MX.

On May 8, 11:00*am, a > wrote:
> On May 8, 11:32*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Morgans writes:
> > > I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> > > reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
> > > MX. *I am going to block you.
>
> > Promises, promises. We'll see how long you can resist not seeing my posts.
>
> Ego, thy RAP persona is MX.

Ironically in addition with him having no clue what the real world of
flying is all about, Mx attention to detail is not his forte.

That message from Morgans wasn't to him. I am not sure if it was to
me or VOR DME

On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:47:35 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips with
> MX. I am going to block you.

Look at this ****. Blocking a poster b/c he takes umbrage with a sim
pilot.

Can anyone say "Morgans' an asshole?"
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

a writes:

> Ego, thy RAP persona is MX.

I'd be happy to see the treehouse club put me in their killfiles. Then perhaps
real discussions could take place, about aviation, and not about me.

writes:

> Ironically in addition with him having no clue what the real world of
> flying is all about, Mx attention to detail is not his forte.

Hmm ... I stand corrected.

> That message from Morgans wasn't to him. I am not sure if it was to
> me or VOR DME

Perhaps both of you. Guilt by association.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Uhhh sports pilot category.
>
> I don't want to be a sport pilot. Too many restrictions to make it worthwhile.

Such as what that would realistically effect you?

You've said many times you have no money, so you couldn't afford to fly
real airplanes the sport pilot category doesn't allow.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Am 07.05.2010 23:26, schrieb :
> Because it is obvious you have never done any real flight planning in
> your life.

It would be nice if you'd save your breath ... answering him over and
over again will bring us all to a point where nobody can tell the
difference the two of you, and this would be a bad thing.

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

Am 07.05.2010 23:28, schrieb :
> > wrote:

>> Yes, safety is an important part of simulation for me.
>
> Yet you short cut the first, and one of the most important, tasks you must do
> to fly.

Yeah, the boy has to take care that he doesn't fall off his chair.
*brawahaha*

and now get this IDIOT out of here!

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

writes:

> Such as what that would realistically effect you?

The single-passenger restriction, the altitude restriction, the night flight
restriction, the instrument rating restriction, and the restriction placed on
A-D airspaces. Overall, it's pretty useless unless you just want to fly
circuits around some small airport in the boondocks.

> You've said many times you have no money, so you couldn't afford to fly
> real airplanes the sport pilot category doesn't allow.

I can't afford to fly the airplanes that the category allows, either.

"a" > wrote in message
...
On May 8, 11:32 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
> > I hate to do it, because I think you have something to contribute to the
> > reading of this group, but I just cant deal with your constant quips
> > with
> > MX. I am going to block you.
>
> Promises, promises. We'll see how long you can resist not seeing my posts.

Ego, thy RAP persona is MX.
))))))))))))))))))))))))
Amen!

Already gone, and I only saw this due to someone else quoting it. I hope
that does not happen often.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Such as what that would realistically effect you?
>
> The single-passenger restriction, the altitude restriction, the night flight
> restriction, the instrument rating restriction, and the restriction placed on
> A-D airspaces. Overall, it's pretty useless unless you just want to fly
> circuits around some small airport in the boondocks.

Non sequitur.

Try again, this time telling us how the sport pilot restrictions would
realistically effect you versus private pilot.

Or do you concider anything short of ATP too restrictive to be a reason
not to really fly?

>> You've said many times you have no money, so you couldn't afford to fly
>> real airplanes the sport pilot category doesn't allow.
>
> I can't afford to fly the airplanes that the category allows, either.

Now we get to the real bottom line.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Try again, this time telling us how the sport pilot restrictions would
> realistically effect you versus private pilot.

I just listed them, and they would all affect me.

> Or do you concider anything short of ATP too restrictive to be a reason
> not to really fly?

I consider being limited to tiny tin cans to be very restrictive.

writes:

> Or do you concider anything short of ATP too restrictive to be a reason
> not to really fly?

Right now, I'm descending via the LYNDI2 arrival into San Diego, in a Citation
X. How easy would that be to accomplish in real life, and how much would it
cost?

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Try again, this time telling us how the sport pilot restrictions would
>> realistically effect you versus private pilot.
>
> I just listed them, and they would all affect me.

Most of the "restrictions" you listed don't exist as a difference
between sport pilot and private pilot.

So once again you are just babbling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Or do you concider anything short of ATP too restrictive to be a reason
>> not to really fly?
>
> Right now, I'm descending via the LYNDI2 arrival into San Diego, in a Citation
> X.

Delusional.

Right now, you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC
playing a game and pretending to fly.

That in itself is OK as lots of people play pretend games.

What makes you stand out as a babbling, delusional fool is that you have
convinced yourself that somehow game playing is the same thing as living a
real life and qualifies you to give advice to people in the real world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Most of the "restrictions" you listed don't exist as a difference
> between sport pilot and private pilot.
>
> So once again you are just babbling.

FAR 61.315

What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a
light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) You may share the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger,
provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft
rental fees. You must pay at least half the operating expenses of the flight.

(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.
(2) For compensation or hire.
(3) In furtherance of a business.
(4) While carrying more than one passenger.
(5) At night.
(6) In Class A airspace.
(7) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C,
or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an
operational control tower unless you have met the requirements
specified in §61.325.
(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior authorization
from the country in which you seek to operate. Your sport pilot
certificate carries the limit "Holder does not meet ICAO requirements."
(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer
if you are an aircraft salesperson.
(10) In a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.
(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever
is higher.
(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
(13) Without visual reference to the surface.
(14) If the aircraft has:
(i) Has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the
requirements of Sec. 61.327(b).
(ii) Has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you have
met the requirements of Sec. 61.327(a) or have logged flight
time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than
or equal to 87 knots CAS before April 2, 2010.]
(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness
certificate of the aircraft being flown.
(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman medical
certificate, or any other limit or endorsement from an authorized
instructor.
(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's
license or any restriction or limitation imposed by judicial or
administrative order when using your driver's license to satisfy
a requirement of this part.
(18) While towing any object.
(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than
one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or
the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

As you can see, the list of restrictions is quite long.

writes:

> Right now, you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC
> playing a game and pretending to fly.

Actually I'm sitting on the ramp outside Landmark, waiting for my virtual
passengers to board. I think we'll be going to LAX shortly.

> That in itself is OK as lots of people play pretend games.
>
> What makes you stand out as a babbling, delusional fool is that you have
> convinced yourself that somehow game playing is the same thing as living a
> real life and qualifies you to give advice to people in the real world.

I'm qualified to give advice independently of my simulation experience in most
cases, although the experience is particularly useful when answering questions
about simulation.

I see allegedly real-world pilots here giving advice on things that they
manifestly know nothing about, and I know I'm not that clueless. The most
vocal pilots here seem to be the ones who are still students or have just
barely squeaked past a PPL, and think that a little paper or card from the FAA
makes them experts.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Most of the "restrictions" you listed don't exist as a difference
>> between sport pilot and private pilot.
>>
>> So once again you are just babbling.
>
> FAR 61.315
>
> What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?
>
> As you can see, the list of restrictions is quite long.

You have glossed over two things:

1) What restrictions would effect YOU? Do you really want to tow banners?

2) You have overlooked several paragraphs, in particular 61.325 and 61.3271.

You are arm waving.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Right now, you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC
>> playing a game and pretending to fly.
>
> Actually I'm sitting on the ramp outside Landmark, waiting for my virtual
> passengers to board. I think we'll be going to LAX shortly.

Actually you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC playing
a game and deluding yourself.

>> That in itself is OK as lots of people play pretend games.
>>
>> What makes you stand out as a babbling, delusional fool is that you have
>> convinced yourself that somehow game playing is the same thing as living a
>> real life and qualifies you to give advice to people in the real world.
>
> I'm qualified to give advice independently of my simulation experience in most
> cases, although the experience is particularly useful when answering questions
> about simulation.

If you limited yourself to giving others the "benefit" of your "experience"
to simulation groups you wouldn't find yourself on the receiving end of
so much derision.

If you had limited yourself to answering the original question with a
simple V66 is one way to go instead of pontificating about Victor airways
having mystical properties that don't exist, you would have gotten a lot
less derision in this thread.

> I see allegedly real-world pilots here giving advice on things that they
> manifestly know nothing about, and I know I'm not that clueless. The most
> vocal pilots here seem to be the ones who are still students or have just
> barely squeaked past a PPL, and think that a little paper or card from the FAA
> makes them experts.

I see someone who's experience is limited to reading the AIM on line and
playing a game on a PC that does not know what the term "flight planner"
means nor that the term "flight plan" has two meanings, nor what actually
goes into generating a flight plan trying to pretend to be a subject matter
expert.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> You have glossed over two things:
>
> 1) What restrictions would effect YOU? Do you really want to tow banners?

I've already listed the things that would affect me. I might want to fly
higher than 10,000 feet. I definitely would want to be able to fly at night. I
might want more than one passenger with me. I'd want an instrument rating. And
so on.

The Sport Pilot certificate is almost worthless. It would make more sense to
do away with the many excesses in medical requirements, so that people
wouldn't have to resort to a Sport Pilot certificate just because they cannot
pass a medical.

> 2) You have overlooked several paragraphs, in particular 61.325 and 61.3271.

I haven't overlooked them (I assume you mean 61.327, not 61.3271, which
doesn't exist), but they are irrelevant, since the other restrictions of the
certificate already render it useless to me.

writes:

> Actually you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC playing
> a game and deluding yourself.

I dunno ... there was a lot of turbulence coming in over the mountains, and
some very light icing at a few points. Fortunately I had left the seat-belt
sign on.

> If you limited yourself to giving others the "benefit" of your "experience"
> to simulation groups you wouldn't find yourself on the receiving end of
> so much derision.

I'm not worried about the derision, given its sources. In every venue there
are always a few highly vocal dorks who insult anyone who doesn't kowtow to
them. This is especially true in cyberspace.

> If you had limited yourself to answering the original question with a
> simple V66 is one way to go instead of pontificating about Victor airways
> having mystical properties that don't exist, you would have gotten a lot
> less derision in this thread.

Oh, the treehouse club would have still checked in. As I've said before, I
could say the sky is blue and some idiot would still argue with it. Some
people can't stand for me to be right. They fear that I might be smarter than
they are, and their fear is justified. Nevertheless, they hope that they can
prevent others from figuring this out by insulting me. I suppose that works
with other idiots, but not with intelligent people.

> I see someone who's experience is limited to reading the AIM on line and
> playing a game on a PC that does not know what the term "flight planner"
> means nor that the term "flight plan" has two meanings, nor what actually
> goes into generating a flight plan trying to pretend to be a subject matter
> expert.

I guess you missed the one who didn't know a TACAN from a VORTAC. Selective
perception, perhaps.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You have glossed over two things:
>>
>> 1) What restrictions would effect YOU? Do you really want to tow banners?
>
> I've already listed the things that would affect me. I might want to fly
> higher than 10,000 feet. I definitely would want to be able to fly at night. I
> might want more than one passenger with me. I'd want an instrument rating. And
> so on.

So the only real flying that you would ever concider bothering with would
be jets at flight levels?

> The Sport Pilot certificate is almost worthless. It would make more sense to
> do away with the many excesses in medical requirements, so that people
> wouldn't have to resort to a Sport Pilot certificate just because they cannot

Since most GA flights are two or less people, under 8,500 feet, and day VFR,
you are just babbling.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Actually you are sitting in a chair in your hovel in front of a PC playing
>> a game and deluding yourself.
>
> I dunno ... there was a lot of turbulence coming in over the mountains, and
> some very light icing at a few points. Fortunately I had left the seat-belt
> sign on.

Delusional.

Was your chair shaking?

>> If you had limited yourself to answering the original question with a
>> simple V66 is one way to go instead of pontificating about Victor airways
>> having mystical properties that don't exist, you would have gotten a lot
>> less derision in this thread.
>
> Oh, the treehouse club would have still checked in. As I've said before, I
> could say the sky is blue and some idiot would still argue with it. Some
> people can't stand for me to be right.

Yeah, because you've already established yourself as an arrogant ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> Was your chair shaking?

The whole aircraft was moving.

> Yeah, because you've already established yourself as an arrogant ass.

Arrogance is not one of my vices. I do see a lot of it here, though.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Was your chair shaking?
>
> The whole aircraft was moving.

You mean your apartment where you were sitting in a chair in front of a
PC playing a flying game was moving?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

> So the only real flying that you would ever concider bothering with would
> be jets at flight levels?

No, I like most types of aircraft other than aerobatic aircraft and military
fighter planes. I like sedate, precise, safe flying, with accurate
navigation, and with proper use of instruments.

> Since most GA flights are two or less people, under 8,500 feet, and day VFR,
> you are just babbling.

Only if you can't afford anything better.

writes:

> You mean your apartment where you were sitting in a chair in front of a
> PC playing a flying game was moving?

No, just the aircraft.

I just finished repositioning one of my Citations at KLAS, though, and the
ride was very smooth. Ditto for my early morning flight from KSAN to KLAX. Not
sure what I'll fly next--maybe one of my Bonanzas or Dakotas. I haven't flown
any airliners in a while, but I guess I just haven't been in the mood.

On Sat, 8 May 2010 15:24:08 -0400, Morgans wrote:

>>> Promises, promises. We'll see how long you can resist not seeing my
>>> posts.
>>
>> Ego, thy RAP persona is MX.
>
> Ironically in addition with him having no clue what the real world of
> flying is all about, Mx attention to detail is not his forte.

But your attention to him /in detail/ is much like the retarded boy
who counts the sprinkles on his ice cream cone...then sticks it in his
ear.

Too stupid to be fun(ny).
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So the only real flying that you would ever concider bothering with would
>> be jets at flight levels?
>
> No, I like most types of aircraft other than aerobatic aircraft and military
> fighter planes.

None responsive as usual.

>> Since most GA flights are two or less people, under 8,500 feet, and day VFR,
>> you are just babbling.
>
> Only if you can't afford anything better.

Delusional nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You mean your apartment where you were sitting in a chair in front of a
>> PC playing a flying game was moving?
>
> No, just the aircraft.

Nothing, other than pictures on a video display, was moving.

>
> I just finished repositioning one of my Citations at KLAS, though, and the
> ride was very smooth. Ditto for my early morning flight from KSAN to KLAX. Not
> sure what I'll fly next--maybe one of my Bonanzas or Dakotas. I haven't flown
> any airliners in a while, but I guess I just haven't been in the mood.

You are sounding more and more insane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Stephen! writes:

> I take it you've never met Chuck Yeager in your simulator?

I don't know. I communicate with controllers and I hear other pilots, but I
don't know who they are.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
>
>> I take it you've never met Chuck Yeager in your simulator?
>
> I don't know. I communicate with controllers and I hear other pilots, but I
> don't know who they are.

They are other simmers and a computer.

You are so delusional you should be in an institution.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>
>>>> Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold
>>>> pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.
>>
>>
>>> I take it you've never met Chuck Yeager in your simulator?
>>
>> I don't know. I communicate with controllers and I hear other pilots,
>> but I don't know who they are.
>
>
> Woosh!
>
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465
> http://imagesdesavions.com


Sad... very sad.

On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:19:00 -0700, "RT12" > wrote:

>
>"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold
>>>>> pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I take it you've never met Chuck Yeager in your simulator?
>>>
>>> I don't know. I communicate with controllers and I hear other pilots,
>>> but I don't know who they are.
>>
>>
>> Woosh!
>>
>>
>> --
>> RCOS #7
>> IBA# 11465
>> http://imagesdesavions.com
>
>
>Sad... very sad.
>
>
Probably never heard of Bob Hoover either. Maybe the boldest pilot who
ever lived. I am in awe of his past performances in the Commander.

Ron Kelley