I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think
the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway
heading to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:

Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...

I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)


Matt

That's a charting issue. The source is required to state values to those
precisions. Chart makers are supposed to show them to the whole degree.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think
> the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
> incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
> The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway
> heading to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>
> Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>
> I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
> 242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)
>
> Matt

In a previous article, Matt Whiting > said:
>the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
>incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!

It then says to "Expect clearnace". Oh, and I guess I won't be departing
rwy 28 because I can't maintain "minimum clib of 594' per NM". I could
probably maintain a minimum *climb*, but that's not what it specifies.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The Computer made me do it."

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Matt Whiting > said:
>
>>the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
>>incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
>
>
> It then says to "Expect clearnace". Oh, and I guess I won't be departing
> rwy 28 because I can't maintain "minimum clib of 594' per NM". I could
> probably maintain a minimum *climb*, but that's not what it specifies.
>
>

Yes, a pretty sorry excuse for a chart. I think it is pretty new as it
wasn't in my last set of plates. Maybe they will get it right on the
next edition.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, a pretty sorry excuse for a chart. I think it is pretty new as it
> wasn't in my last set of plates. Maybe they will get it right on the
> next edition.
>
>

Only if it is brought to their attention. There is an email address on the
TPP booklet to report charting errors, and I have found them to be very
responsive.

Stan

On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:39:51 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:

>
>I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think
>the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
>incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
>The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway
>heading to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>
>Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>
>I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
>242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)
>
>
>Matt


Using Jepp plates, one can be sloppier as that chart only calls for a 242°
Heading :-)
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think the
> government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
> incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
> The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway heading
> to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>
> Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>
> I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
> 242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)

Blimey, you're one of those advanced pilots I keep hearing about. I'm still
working on: "That way, over there, see?"

:-)

D.

David Cartwright wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think the
>>government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
>>incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
>>The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway heading
>>to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>>
>>Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>>
>>I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
>>242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)
>
>
> Blimey, you're one of those advanced pilots I keep hearing about. I'm still
> working on: "That way, over there, see?"
>
> :-)

Well, I started out with N, E, S and W.
I then moved up to N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW.

:-)

It wasn't until I got my instrument rating that I REALLY thought about
flying a heading to the nearest degree or thereabouts. It isn't that
hard in smooth conditions once you learn to use trim correctly.
However, it is still pretty much impossible for me in turbulence. You
sort of average the heading you desire, but rarely can you hold within 2
degrees in the bumps.

However, this chart just made me laugh when I saw the headings they listed!

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think
> the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
> incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
> The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway
> heading to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>
> Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>
> I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
> 242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)

You're probably one of those people who round off those pesky 778 foot DH's
to 780 too :-)

Roy Smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>I was just reviewing the new Elmira One departure procedure. I think
>>the government has let GPS go to their heads. Unless I'm reading it
>>incorrectly, it specifies the initial heading out to TWO decimal places!
>>The procedure is pretty trivial as it basically says to fly runway
>>heading to 4000 feet, but it is specified as below, using R24 as an example:
>>
>>Climb via heading 242.40 to 4000, thence...
>>
>>I'm not bad on heading control, but no way I can fly 242.40, or even
>>242.4. I'm pretty happy if I can fly 241 - 243! :-)
>
>
> You're probably one of those people who round off those pesky 778 foot DH's
> to 780 too :-)

How'd you know? Please, don't tell the FAA!

Matt