If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one
> side
> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move
> from
> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

No, that was only put in the regs to confuse people that never fly anything
but desktop computers.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

Yes but a real pilot would be following a point on the horizon to smooth
out such things and maintain a more or less constant heading.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
> while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
> off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your altitude
> each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
> > while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
> > off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your altitude
> > each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
car.
Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
Why not fly the plane?

Lou > wrote in
:

> On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
>> > while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
>> > off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your
>> > altitude each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or
>> > vice versa?
>
> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
> car.
> Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
> Why not fly the plane?
>
>

Because he doesn't fly.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Lou > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>> :
>>>
>>> > If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
>>> > while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
>>> > off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your
>>> > altitude each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or
>>> > vice versa?
>>
>> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
>> car.
>> Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
>> Why not fly the plane?
>>
>>
>
> Because he doesn't fly.
>
>
>
> Bertie
Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't fly? He
brings up some good typical student questions and some even us old timers
have to rethink.

--
Regards, Bob F.

Lou > wrote:

> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
> car.

VFR at night terrain avoidance.

To get from the LA basin to Chiraco Summit to see the Patton museum.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lou > wrote in
>> news:a1343280-835c-4e41-b814-dff978884a93@
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> > If you are following a road or river or other feature on the
>>>> > ground while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but
>>>> > often veers off to one side or the other, are you expected to
>>>> > change your altitude each time you move from a heading of 0-179
>>>> > to 180-359 or vice versa?
>>>
>>> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
>>> car.
>>> Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
>>> Why not fly the plane?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because he doesn't fly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't fly?


It isn't because he doesn't fly.



Bertie

Lou writes:

> Why would you follow a road?

Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage is a
useful type of navigation for VFR flights.

> Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't fly? He
> brings up some good typical student questions and some even us old
> timers have to rethink.
>

Because he's never flown, doesnt WANT to fly, purports to know more than
those who do, and gives advice based on that.. all the while asking such
questions as above.

He's been asked not to do so. He's been asked to change his tact. His
antisocial tendencies overrule though...and he's a pest..

On Aug 25, 5:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

The headings for VFR cruising altitudes are country dependent, and
your heading does not matter, just the ground track (due to the effect
of drift).

Cheers

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Lou writes:
>
>> Why would you follow a road?
>
> Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage
> is a
> useful type of navigation for VFR flights.

This situation usually resolves itself.
If you are flying "pilotage" and at an altitude that the VFR cruising
altitudes applies, you will probably be picking out a ground reference many
miles away and cruise for some time before changing coarse. If you insist
on keeping you plane on the same coarse as the river or road then then you
are expected to follow the rule. If you are below 3000' agl, then the VFR
cruising rule doesn't apply.

--
Regards, Bob F.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't fly? He
>> brings up some good typical student questions and some even us old
>> timers have to rethink.
>>
>
> Because he's never flown, doesnt WANT to fly, purports to know more than
> those who do, and gives advice based on that.. all the while asking such
> questions as above.
>
> He's been asked not to do so. He's been asked to change his tact. His
> antisocial tendencies overrule though...and he's a pest..
>
Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't have a
lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while and see how
it goes.

--
Regards, Bob F.

"More_Flaps" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 25, 5:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
>> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one
>> side
>> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move
>> from
>> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?
>
> The headings for VFR cruising altitudes are country dependent, and
> your heading does not matter, just the ground track (due to the effect
> of drift).
>
> Cheers

Actually 91.159 says "Course" (one of these word I keep misspelling, and at
70 I don't think I'll ever get it right). And "ground track" seems to be
exactly the same for this discussion.

--
Regards, Bob F.

In article >,
Lou > wrote:

> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
> car.
> Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
> Why not fly the plane?

An aircraft without DME, LORAN, and GPS may wish to stay out of the Boston
Class Bravo airspace. An excellent way to do that is follow 495 around Boston.
For those that want the torture, I know it can be done with just one VOR.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

What you are doing is not pilotage.
Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Lou writes:
>
>> Why would you follow a road?
>
> Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage
> is a
> useful type of navigation for VFR flights.

> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

But fun!

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> What you are doing is not pilotage.
> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>
> BT
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lou writes:
>>
>>> Why would you follow a road?
>>
>> Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage
>> is a
>> useful type of navigation for VFR flights.
>
What is it that makes you think he not practicing pilotage? What would you
call what he describes what he is doing? (reference please). We'll give you
a little time to read up on Pilotage, DR and Radio navigation and then you
can restate what you said.
--
Regards, Bob F.

Bob F. wrote:
>
If you are below 3000' agl,
> then the VFR cruising rule doesn't apply.
>

Is that a US only rule or universal? They refer to lots of lower
altitudes as flight levels over there in Europe where mx is..

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. wrote:
>>
> If you are below 3000' agl,
>> then the VFR cruising rule doesn't apply.
>>
>
> Is that a US only rule or universal? They refer to lots of lower altitudes
> as flight levels over there in Europe where mx is..

I can only reference FAR 91.159. Someone familiar with Europe will have to
answer that side.

--
Regards, Bob F.

In rec.aviation.student BT > wrote:
> What you are doing is not pilotage.
> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

My understanding is that you have just described dead reckoning with
occasional corrections coming from pilotage. Pure pilotage is simply
knowing where you are by looking out the window. When on the move, you
just keep looking out the window and keep updating your mental picture of
where you are. You may make mental estimates based on this of how long it
will be to get to the next landmark, but if you're doing actual
computation then you're beyond mere pilotage already.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..


>>
> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't have
> a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while and see
> how it goes.

You are wasting your time. He is an idiot and a troll. He lives to string
along peoplre who take him seriously.

Dave S writes:

> Is that a US only rule or universal? They refer to lots of lower
> altitudes as flight levels over there in Europe where mx is..

The rules vary elsewhere, but I "fly" only in the United States, since I know
the regulations there better, and they don't change every 300 miles, and I'm
more familiar with regions in the U.S.

The rules in France are stranger, and they change from country to country, and
Europe in general is very messy in this respect, so I just don't "fly" there.

If I were ever to get a pilot's license, it would be in the U.S. Since I
don't live in the U.S., that's one reason why I don't try to get a pilot's
license (but it's not the most important reason).

Anyway, back to the topic ... it's true that I can fly in the general
direction of a road instead of following it precisely, but I find that it's
easy to get so far away that it's hard to see the road any more. Some
Interstates will turn west for miles, and then turn east again, and so on.
They stay in one direction long enough to get away from you if you are trying
to keep an "average" heading, but if you turn you have to change altitude.
Climbing and descending 2000 feet every few minutes seems like a lot for a
small aircraft.

I haven't seen anything in the FARs that provides a way around this for cruise
flight, except, as Bob has pointed out, flying below 3000 AGL. That would
work well enough in Iowa, and then the problem is solved. But over hilly
terrain it gets more difficult, and also other rules come into play for
low-altitude flight, such as the need to respect limitations over congested
areas, wildlife preserves, etc.

So, I am open to suggestions, and I'd like to hear how other pilots (real or
virtual) deal with this.

BT writes:

> What you are doing is not pilotage.
> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies that you can navigate
with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using calculations to
determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to navigate
that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
features on the land below alone.

Bob Noel writes:

> An aircraft without DME, LORAN, and GPS may wish to stay out of the Boston
> Class Bravo airspace. An excellent way to do that is follow 495 around Boston.
> For those that want the torture, I know it can be done with just one VOR.

I see that the 495 is almost north-south (magnetic) in some portions. How do
you manage your altitude when flying that portion of the highway?

A more difficult situation arises when the highway meanders substantially back
and forth from east to west, constantly crossing 360 or 180 degrees. If it's
in hilly country (as it might well be if it has to meander back and forth),
just setting a single heading might not be an option, as you can easily lose
sight of the highway. So, in that case, how does one manage altitude?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The rules vary elsewhere, but I "fly" only in the United States, since I
> know
> the regulations there better, and they don't change every 300 miles, and
> I'm
> more familiar with regions in the U.S.

You don't fly anywhere, you're nothing but a simmer flying a desk. If you
knew anything about the US regs, you wouldn't be asking the question.

Dave S > wrote in :

> Bob F. wrote:
>>
> If you are below 3000' agl,
>> then the VFR cruising rule doesn't apply.
>>
>
> Is that a US only rule or universal? They refer to lots of lower
> altitudes as flight levels over there in Europe where mx is..
>

It's common in many parts of the world, but it's not universal. Th eBirts
use a quadtrantal rule, for instance, and in some countries th edivision
isn't N/S but E/W (Spain, for one, and Sweden has some funky rules too.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> What you are doing is not pilotage.
>> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
>> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
>> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>>
>> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>
> Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
> includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies that you can
> navigate
> with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using calculations
> to
> determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to
> navigate
> that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
> features on the land below alone.

If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb assed
questions?

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave S writes:
>
>> Is that a US only rule or universal? They refer to lots of lower
>> altitudes as flight levels over there in Europe where mx is..
>
> The rules vary elsewhere, but I "fly" only in the United States,


You don't fly, period, fjukkkktard.



Bertie
>

Wilhelm writes:

> If you knew anything about the US regs, you wouldn't be asking the question.

I know a lot about the regulations, but perhaps you know more. In that case,
you can provide me with suggetsions.

Wilhelm writes:

> If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb assed
> questions?

If you know more about navigation, why aren't you answering them?

"Bob F." > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't fly? He
>>> brings up some good typical student questions and some even us old
>>> timers have to rethink.
>>>
>>
>> Because he's never flown, doesnt WANT to fly, purports to know more than
>> those who do, and gives advice based on that.. all the while asking such
>> questions as above.
>>
>> He's been asked not to do so. He's been asked to change his tact. His
>> antisocial tendencies overrule though...and he's a pest..
>>
> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't have
> a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while and see
> how it goes.
>
> --
> Regards, Bob F.

You just sound like the latest sock puppet to me.

Do us all a favor and avoid his threads.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Anyway, back to the topic ... it's true that I can fly in the general
> direction of a road instead of following it precisely, but I find that it's
> easy to get so far away that it's hard to see the road any more. Some
> Interstates will turn west for miles, and then turn east again, and so on.
> They stay in one direction long enough to get away from you if you are trying
> to keep an "average" heading, but if you turn you have to change altitude.
> Climbing and descending 2000 feet every few minutes seems like a lot for a
> small aircraft.

You fly towards the point where the road meets the horizon, or more
likely, since the horizon is over 80 miles away at 4500 AGL, fades
into the haze, which since you specified VFR, will be at least 3
miles away.

This is trivial to do in a real airplane.

If you can't do it in simulation, the simulation is the problem.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wilhelm writes:
>
>> If you knew anything about the US regs, you wouldn't be asking the
>> question.
>
> I know a lot about the regulations, but perhaps you know more. In that
> case,
> you can provide me with suggetsions.

Yeah, keep your hands in our pants, where they can't do any harm.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wilhelm writes:
>
>> If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb assed
>> questions?
>
> If you know more about navigation, why aren't you answering them?

Because I am absolutely certain, any real pilot already knows the answer,
and you are just trolling.

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BT writes:
>>
>>> What you are doing is not pilotage.
>>> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
>>> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
>>> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>>>
>>> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>>
>> Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
>> includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies that you can
>> navigate
>> with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using calculations
>> to
>> determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to
>> navigate
>> that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
>> features on the land below alone.
>
> If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb assed
> questions?
>
If you just answer his DAQ then maybe the Newbies can benefit. Think of his
questions as elementary and now is an opportunity to help others....like
"why is he sky blue" or "where do babies come from". I went through a bunch
of his q's and although they are very juvenile and elementary, many in this
community got the answers wrong. So take the Q's as they are...you
know...when life hands you lemons...get a glass of gin, some ice and make
yourself a nice drink...or something like that. Iow, make the most of it
and use his q's to educate all those who are listening in. If you can't
answer his q's then please shut up and he'll go away.

--
Regards, Bob F.

"Bob F." > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>
> If you just answer his DAQ then maybe the Newbies can benefit. Think of
> his questions as elementary and now is an opportunity to help
> others....like "why is he sky blue" or "where do babies come from". I
> went through a bunch of his q's and although they are very juvenile and
> elementary, many in this community got the answers wrong. So take the Q's
> as they are...you know...when life hands you lemons...get a glass of gin,
> some ice and make yourself a nice drink...or something like that. Iow,
> make the most of it and use his q's to educate all those who are listening
> in. If you can't answer his q's then please shut up and he'll go away.
>
> --
> Regards, Bob F.

Go **** yourself Bob. You're either terminally stupid or a hopeless
sockpuppet.

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Anyway, back to the topic ... it's true that I can fly in the general
>> direction of a road instead of following it precisely, but I find that
>> it's
>> easy to get so far away that it's hard to see the road any more. Some
>> Interstates will turn west for miles, and then turn east again, and so
>> on.
>> They stay in one direction long enough to get away from you if you are
>> trying
>> to keep an "average" heading, but if you turn you have to change
>> altitude.
>> Climbing and descending 2000 feet every few minutes seems like a lot for
>> a
>> small aircraft.
>
> You fly towards the point where the road meets the horizon, or more
> likely, since the horizon is over 80 miles away at 4500 AGL, fades
> into the haze, which since you specified VFR, will be at least 3
> miles away.
>
> This is trivial to do in a real airplane.
>
> If you can't do it in simulation, the simulation is the problem.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Simulators have no problem handling this.

--
Regards, Bob F.

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob F." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>> If you just answer his DAQ then maybe the Newbies can benefit. Think of
>> his questions as elementary and now is an opportunity to help
>> others....like "why is he sky blue" or "where do babies come from". I
>> went through a bunch of his q's and although they are very juvenile and
>> elementary, many in this community got the answers wrong. So take the
>> Q's as they are...you know...when life hands you lemons...get a glass of
>> gin, some ice and make yourself a nice drink...or something like that.
>> Iow, make the most of it and use his q's to educate all those who are
>> listening in. If you can't answer his q's then please shut up and he'll
>> go away.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Bob F.
>
> Go **** yourself Bob. You're either terminally stupid or a hopeless
> sockpuppet.
>

oh...now's here's a scholar that we would all like to imitate in the Western
World.

--
Regards, Bob F.

"Bob F." > wrote

> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't have
> a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while and see
> how it goes.

And the cycle continues, with different names, and different subjects, but
the same, never less.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
> while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
> off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your altitude
> each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

You appear to familiar with FAR 91.159. There are two aspects you didn't
make clear in your hypothetical question that determine whether it can be
answered objectively: whether the aircraft is more than 3000 AGL and
whether the aircraft is maintaining level cruising flight. Once you have
those answered you should be able to answer the question yourself.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob F." > wrote
>
>> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't
>> have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while
>> and see how it goes.
>
> And the cycle continues, with different names, and different subjects, but
> the same, never less.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Not to mention the fact, you are probably arguing with Dudley.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?


I usually "cut the corner" and roll inverted. This allows me to flip
the bird to the guy in the semi that's hogging the road below.

On Aug 24, 5:52*pm, "BT" > wrote:

> What you are doing is not pilotage.
> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

> BT

Hmmm? I think what you are describing above is dead reckoning, not
pilotage.

On Aug 24, 8:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BT writes:
> > What you are doing is not pilotage.
> > Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> > Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed..
> > Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
> > just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>
> Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
> includes roads and rivers. *Successful pilotage implies that you can navigate
> with just the visual features and a chart. *If you are using calculations to
> determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. *I do try to navigate
> that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
> features on the land below alone.

Well,, well,, chalk one up for the desktop pilot and one down for BT!

On Aug 24, 8:53*pm, "Bob F." > wrote:

>> "Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in message

>> Go **** yourself Bob. You're either terminally stupid or a hopeless
>> sockpuppet.

> oh...now's here's a scholar that we would all like to imitate in the Western
> World.

> Regards, *Bob F

Yeah, replies like that should receive more ignorance than Anthony.

On Aug 25, 9:46 am, Ricky > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 8:09 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > BT writes:
> > > What you are doing is not pilotage.
> > > Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
> > > Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
> > > Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
> > > just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>
> > Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
> > includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies that you can navigate
> > with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using calculations to
> > determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to navigate
> > that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
> > features on the land below alone.
>
> Well,, well,, chalk one up for the desktop pilot and one down for BT!

For what it's worth, pilotage is sweaty finger on a chart, point to
point flying. Dead reckoning is a corruption of the phrase deduced
reckoning, and comes about from the sailing days where one would
attempt to take into account all of the influences on the track over
the bottom -- wind, currents, estimated speed and so on, to deduce
where one would be at a given time. In a way a NDB approach has a lot
of dead reckoning built into the procedure. The pilot knows where the
airplane was when it crosses over the beacon, and taking into account
wind drift and a hint of wind velocity as learned from the procedure
turn inbound, 'deduces' where the airport might be. If the deductions
and piloting is correct, when (s)he looks up after the correct amount
of time passes by, the airport should be right there. I am so glad I
don't have to fly many NDB approaches any more. None precision indeed!

Ricky > wrote in news:5d9f329e-0c99-4658-99a8-
:

> On Aug 24, 5:52*pm, "BT" > wrote:
>
>> What you are doing is not pilotage.
>> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
>> Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
>> Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.
>
>> BT
>
> Hmmm? I think what you are describing above is dead reckoning, not
> pilotage.
>
>
>

Dead reckoning means no corections based on landmarks wahtsoever.


Bertie

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob F." > wrote
>>
>>> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I
>>> don't have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along
>>> for a while and see how it goes.
>>
>> And the cycle continues, with different names, and different
>> subjects, but the same, never less.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> Not to mention the fact, you are probably arguing with Dudley.
>
>
>

Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhah!


Yeh, OK, k00kie boi.


BTW, if anyone is confused about the actual definition of a sock, this is
it.


Bertie

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BT writes:
>>
>>> What you are doing is not pilotage.
>>> Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction
>>> computations. Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to
>>> compute ground speed. Correct the heading slightly based on
>>> "observations" from pilotage.
>>>
>>> just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.
>>
>> Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which
>> presumably includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies
>> that you can navigate
>> with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using
>> calculations to
>> determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to
>> navigate
>> that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by
>> visual features on the land below alone.
>
> If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb assed
> questions?
>
>
Wassamatta, maxie, runnninga away from the bertster? Decided to pick on
Maxie instead?

;(



Bertie

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wilhelm writes:
>>
>>> If you are such a scholar on navigation, why are you asking dumb
>>> assed questions?
>>
>> If you know more about navigation, why aren't you answering them?
>
> Because I am absolutely certain, any real pilot already knows the
> answer,

Well, you obviously don't.


Bertie

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Anyway, back to the topic ... it's true that I can fly in the general
> direction of a road instead of following it precisely, but I find that it's
> easy to get so far away that it's hard to see the road any more. Some
> Interstates will turn west for miles, and then turn east again, and so on.
> They stay in one direction long enough to get away from you if you are trying
> to keep an "average" heading, but if you turn you have to change altitude.
> Climbing and descending 2000 feet every few minutes seems like a lot for a
> small aircraft.

Visibility must be really poor if you're doing this. I doubt an interstate
is making regular course changes of more than 90 degrees, so you should be
cutting the corners and seeing a maximum angle of 45 degrees to it. A few
minutes really shouldn't be taking you so far away from it that you can't
see it anymore. Even if you do get to where you can't see it, you're
presumably flying a course that will intersect it again soon, so you can
keep your position based on other landmarks until it heaves into view once
again.

> I haven't seen anything in the FARs that provides a way around this for cruise
> flight, except, as Bob has pointed out, flying below 3000 AGL. That would
> work well enough in Iowa, and then the problem is solved. But over hilly
> terrain it gets more difficult, and also other rules come into play for
> low-altitude flight, such as the need to respect limitations over congested
> areas, wildlife preserves, etc.

You could always try flying a glider instead. Nobody expects you to hold
any particular cruise altitudes there. :)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
> flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
> or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
> a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

One would think that if you are flying along a river or road you would
be below 3000 AGL so the regulation that you are asking about doesn't apply.

§ 91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight
level.
Except while holding in a holding
pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while
turning, each person operating an aircraft
under VFR in level cruising flight
more than 3,000 feet above the surface
shall maintain the appropriate altitude
or flight level prescribed below,

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> One would think that if you are flying along a river or road you would
> be below 3000 AGL so the regulation that you are asking about doesn't apply.

Agreed, but in some cases terrain or other factors make flying below 3000 AGL
impractical. Also, at night I'd want to fly higher--the road or river might
be visible, but you can't always see what's on either side (although the
charts help).

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> One would think that if you are flying along a river or road you would
> be below 3000 AGL so the regulation that you are asking about doesn't apply.

I often fly across the SW desert using roads as primary navigation.

And, yes, I have 2 VORs, DME, ADF, and a GPS.

A typical flight to Vegas is through the Cajon Pass, turn right,
and put US 15 on the horizon on the left side of the spinner.

I glance at the GPS now and then to check ground speed then go to
GPS after I pass Jean to navigate through the class B.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel writes:
>
>> An aircraft without DME, LORAN, and GPS may wish to stay out of the
>> Boston Class Bravo airspace. An excellent way to do that is follow
>> 495 around Boston. For those that want the torture, I know it can be
>> done with just one VOR.
>
> I see that the 495 is almost north-south (magnetic) in some portions.
> How do you manage your altitude when flying that portion of the
> highway?
>
> A more difficult situation arises when the highway meanders
> substantially back and forth from east to west, constantly crossing
> 360 or 180 degrees. If it's in hilly country (as it might well be if
> it has to meander back and forth), just setting a single heading might
> not be an option, as you can easily lose sight of the highway. So, in
> that case, how does one manage altitude?
>

You're an idiot


Bertie

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The rules vary elsewhere, but I "fly" only in the United States,
>> since I know
>> the regulations there better, and they don't change every 300 miles,
>> and I'm
>> more familiar with regions in the U.S.
>
> You don't fly anywhere, you're nothing but a simmer flying a desk.

Neither do you, fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Wilhelm" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bob F." > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>
>> "Dave S" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> Why does everyone get on this guys case just because he doesn't
>>>> fly? He brings up some good typical student questions and some
>>>> even us old timers have to rethink.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because he's never flown, doesnt WANT to fly, purports to know more
>>> than those who do, and gives advice based on that.. all the while
>>> asking such questions as above.
>>>
>>> He's been asked not to do so. He's been asked to change his tact.
>>> His antisocial tendencies overrule though...and he's a pest..
>>>
>> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't
>> have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a
>> while and see how it goes.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Bob F.
>
> You just sound like the latest sock puppet to me.
>
> Do us all a favor and avoid his threads.

Just like you, Maxie!



Bertie


Bertie

"Morgans" > wrote in :

>
> "Bob F." > wrote
>
>> Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't
>> have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a
>> while and see how it goes.
>
> And the cycle continues, with different names, and different subjects,
> but the same, never less.

Yep, but with a bit of effort, you could change, you know.


Bertie

Mxsmanic opined

>If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
>flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
>or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move
>from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

To actually answer your question, hemispheric rules only apply if you are 3000'
AGL or less. If you are IFR (I Follow Roads), you are likely to be under 3000'.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 24, 1:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote
:
> >
> > > If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
> > > while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
> > > off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your altitude
> > > each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?
>
> Why would you follow a road? If you want to follow a road, drive a
> car.
> Why would you follow a river, rivers end.
> Why not fly the plane?
>

That's for when you're flying with an IFR (I Follow Roads) clearance.
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants

In rec.aviation.student Ash Wyllie > wrote:
> Mxsmanic opined
>
>>If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
>>flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
>>or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move
>>from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?
>
> To actually answer your question, hemispheric rules only apply if you are 3000'
> AGL or less. If you are IFR (I Follow Roads), you are likely to be under 3000'.

Well, last time I went truly IFR (by your definition) was in Nevada at
about 12,000ft AGL. Visibility was "only" 15 miles or so, hiding my
destination in the haze, so I followed a road that I knew would take me
there. Of course I had no motor, so nobody cared about my cruising
altitudes.

However if you're up that high, you're unlikely to have to make constant
turns every few minutes to keep the road in sight.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:25:04 +0000, jimp wrote:

> Yes but a real pilot would be following a point on the horizon to smooth
> out such things and maintain a more or less constant heading.

Heh. Not always.

There's an unofficial route through the Newark class B that follows the
Garden State Parkway. I was shown this on my club checkride; I'd never
before heard of it, but it's a terrific way to get between the two
airports where the club keeps airplanes.

So we're on this route, and I'm staying *right* over the parkway. The
instructor finally points out that I don't need to follow the road
exactly. I remind him "that's part of the fun."

Using a computer game, though, I'd expect this to be as interesting
as...well...playing a computer game.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon writes:

> So we're on this route, and I'm staying *right* over the parkway. The
> instructor finally points out that I don't need to follow the road
> exactly. I remind him "that's part of the fun."
>
> Using a computer game, though, I'd expect this to be as interesting
> as...well...playing a computer game.

It sounds like your instructor felt the same way about doing it in real life.

There's no accounting for taste.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Andrew Gideon writes:
>
>> So we're on this route, and I'm staying *right* over the parkway.
>> The instructor finally points out that I don't need to follow the
>> road exactly. I remind him "that's part of the fun."
>>
>> Using a computer game, though, I'd expect this to be as interesting
>> as...well...playing a computer game.
>
> It sounds like your instructor felt the same way about doing it in
> real life.
>
> There's no accounting for taste.

There's no accounting for you at all.

bertie

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:48:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>> Why would you follow a road?
>
>Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage is a
>useful type of navigation for VFR flights.

Yeah, roads and rivers and coastlines are the joy of flying low and
slow.

And the answer to the question is:

No, you fly at 2900 feet.



Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

In article >,
Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:48:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >> Why would you follow a road?
> >
> >Pilotage. I try to practice different forms of navigation, and pilotage is a
> >useful type of navigation for VFR flights.
>
> Yeah, roads and rivers and coastlines are the joy of flying low and
> slow.
>
> And the answer to the question is:
>
> No, you fly at 2900 feet.
>
>
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

AGL

Hello,

Which club is that? I have begun looking for a club in NJ

TJ
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
. verio.net...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:25:04 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> Yes but a real pilot would be following a point on the horizon to smooth
>> out such things and maintain a more or less constant heading.
>
> Heh. Not always.
>
> There's an unofficial route through the Newark class B that follows the
> Garden State Parkway. I was shown this on my club checkride; I'd never
> before heard of it, but it's a terrific way to get between the two
> airports where the club keeps airplanes.
>
> So we're on this route, and I'm staying *right* over the parkway. The
> instructor finally points out that I don't need to follow the road
> exactly. I remind him "that's part of the fun."
>
> Using a computer game, though, I'd expect this to be as interesting
> as...well...playing a computer game.
>
> - Andrew