Navigation strategy on a short flight

[Mxsmanic]

From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim:

The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF.

There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield
about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a
NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north.

What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ?

I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from
Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my
distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and
there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I
decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would
place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose
was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the
right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've
gone further than I actually have.

Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had
flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was
doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight
towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the
airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at
Casa Grande.

This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
route under these conditions?

Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments
despite being VFR in VMC. (If I had been using pilotage, I would have simply
followed Interstate 10, which practically leads to the ramp, but I
deliberately avoided looking for the highway.)

I conducted the flight mostly at 3500 feet, although I suppose that's not very
important here.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Exclude pilotage

You should really put this at the top of your message next time, instead
of after 7 paragraphs of less relevant detail. Given that the two
airports are less than 32nm apart, that there are numerous landmarks
along the way, and that even dead reckoning will do a fine job of
depositing you close enough to your destination, I'm sure that everyone
wading through your seven previous paragraphs was repeatedly thinking,
"LOOK OUT THE WINDOW!" There can be merit in rejecting the obvious
solution, but if you're going to do it, you should do it right at the
start.

Some more concrete advice: pilotage really does work, very well. If you
want to practice other techniques, a stopwatch and a look at your
airspeed indicator will help you avoid that odd problem of always having
the impression that you've gone further than you actually have. Finally,
although there are indeed a lot of small airfields in the area, a quick
glance at the sectional reveals that virtually all of them have runways
pointed in different directions, so a quick way to figure out which one
you're looking at would be to read the gigantic numbers painted on the
threshold and compare with what's on the chart.

Oh, and one more thing: VFR-worthy GPS units are really cheap, and help
with this sort of problem immensely. An imaginary VFR-worthy GPS is
probably *really* cheap, and these days is probably more realistic than
going without one.

If any of this wasn't already blindingly obvious to you, then I suggest
your vast experience with aircraft simulation may have taught you less
about flying than you think it has.

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

[Flaps_50!]

On Jun 27, 4:59*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim:
>
> The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF.
>
> There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield
> about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a
> NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north.
>
> What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ?
>
> I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from
> Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my
> distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and
> there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I
> decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would
> place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose
> was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the
> right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've
> gone further than I actually have.
>
> Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had
> flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was
> doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight
> towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the
> airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at
> Casa Grande.
>
> This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
> route under these conditions?
>

Use your compass / DI and allow for the drift expected from winds at
your altitude.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim:
>
> The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF.
>
> There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield
> about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a
> NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north.
>
> What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ?
>
> I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from
> Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my
> distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and
> there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I
> decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would
> place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose
> was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the
> right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've
> gone further than I actually have.
>
> Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had
> flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was
> doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight
> towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the
> airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at
> Casa Grande.
>
> This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
> route under these conditions?
>
> Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments
> despite being VFR in VMC. (If I had been using pilotage, I would have simply
> followed Interstate 10, which practically leads to the ramp, but I
> deliberately avoided looking for the highway.)
>
> I conducted the flight mostly at 3500 feet, although I suppose that's not very
> important here.

A thorough pilot would fill out a flight planning form, fly a magnetic
heading of 145 degrees corrected for the forcast winds aloft, note the
time of passage and deviation from Gila River Memorial to correct for actual
winds, and do that again at the 1734' hill about 6 miles north of KCGZ.

The pilot then would know at all times where he was and how long to get
to the next waypoint as long as his compass and clock were working and
wouldn't be wandering around looking for radials.

The magnetic compass and the clock are valid navigational instruments.

The most elegent way would be GPS direct.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 11:59*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had

YOU GOT NERVOUS????????????

WHY?????????? You are simulating a flight in MSFS!!!!!!!!!

> This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
> route under these conditions?

YOU ARE VFR. YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION.

LOOK OUT THE SIMULATED WINDOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments
> despite being VFR in VMC

DOESN'T matter what the exercise was, YOU WERE SIMULATING A VFR FLIGHT
in MSFS. LOOK OUT YOUR SIMULATED WINDOW

[Mike Adams[_1_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> What is the best way to navigate this route under these conditions?


If no GPS, no pilotage, and no dead reckoning, I would capture the 148
radial from PXR and fly it outbound until I saw the field.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Adams writes:

> If no GPS, no pilotage, and no dead reckoning, I would capture the 148
> radial from PXR and fly it outbound until I saw the field.

OK, thanks. I guess I might have been complicating the navigation more than
necessary. Too many IFR flights, perhaps.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Adams writes:
>
>> If no GPS, no pilotage, and no dead reckoning, I would capture the 148
>> radial from PXR and fly it outbound until I saw the field.
>
> OK, thanks. I guess I might have been complicating the navigation more than
> necessary. Too many IFR flights, perhaps.

More like too much time playing the Microsoft Flight Simulator game and
zero time doing any actual flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> More like too much time playing the Microsoft Flight Simulator game and
> zero time doing any actual flying.

There's no distinction between simulation and real flight in this context. The
navigation methods are the same.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> More like too much time playing the Microsoft Flight Simulator game and
>> zero time doing any actual flying.
>
> There's no distinction between simulation and real flight in this context. The
> navigation methods are the same.

Yep, as long as you keep pushing that button to give you a view out the
side windows.

However the point was that if you had ever done any actual flying you would
know how trivial the problem is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>OK, thanks. I guess I might have been complicating the navigation more than
>necessary. Too many IFR flights, perhaps.


Of course it couldn’t be related to the fact that you never learned how to
do it in the first place.

You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
to know what your intentions are. This should be an easy question, because
if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
flight as planned. If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
requests an anticipated waypoint crossing. If you knew what you were doing
you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are. You
say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you still manage
to be way behind it.

Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
as you find them tedious and boring. Well, some things in this world are
just 'made right'. The morning shimmer over the Cordillera of the Andes,
seen from FL210 is one of them. The fact that you will never be at the
controls of any real airplane is another.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 3:09*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There's no distinction between simulation and real flight in this context..

Yes there is. ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
world. But you wouldn't know this since you don't fly in the real
system

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yep, as long as you keep pushing that button to give you a view out the
> side windows.

In this case I was using radio navigation.

> However the point was that if you had ever done any actual flying you would
> know how trivial the problem is.

Odd that I receive so few answers to such a trivial question, then.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yes there is. ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
> world.

The controller was a real person. What did he do that was unrealistic?

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
> to know what your intentions are.

Yes, the controller asked me two or three times. He thought I had returned to
a downwind for my departure runway because I turned east, and I explained that
I was just joining a radial from the VOR to go towards my destination. Later,
when I abruptly turned east again to switch to the 148 radial, he asked my
intentions again, probably thinking I was lost (kinda sorta true).

Usually, though, ATC doesn't ask many questions when I have FF, particularly
when I'm outside a Class B.

> This should be an easy question, because
> if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
> exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
> flight as planned.

Yes.

> If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
> by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
> allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
> requests an anticipated waypoint crossing.

I'm unaccustomed to the extremely slow speed of a 152, and I usually don't
keep much of a log.

> If you knew what you were doing
> you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
> will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are.

Yes. That's why I asked about it. I only count one useful answer so far.

> You say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you
> still manage to be way behind it.

I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
same thing.

> Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
> consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
> as you find them tedious and boring.

I find some things tedious and boring, others not. It's a risk-benefit
analysis. Keeping a log while praticing in the pattern seems unwarranted to
me, for example. Keeping a log while flying at night over mountains makes
perfect sense, although I don't like to interrupt my scan any more than
necessary.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yep, as long as you keep pushing that button to give you a view out the
>> side windows.
>
> In this case I was using radio navigation.

Which in this case is a less than optimal method.

>> However the point was that if you had ever done any actual flying you would
>> know how trivial the problem is.
>
> Odd that I receive so few answers to such a trivial question, then.

I answered it almost immediately.

How many times do you need to hear the same answer?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> You enlisted an ATC service (VFR flight following) they will generally want
>> to know what your intentions are.
>
> Yes, the controller asked me two or three times. He thought I had returned to
> a downwind for my departure runway because I turned east, and I explained that
> I was just joining a radial from the VOR to go towards my destination. Later,
> when I abruptly turned east again to switch to the 148 radial, he asked my
> intentions again, probably thinking I was lost (kinda sorta true).
>
> Usually, though, ATC doesn't ask many questions when I have FF, particularly
> when I'm outside a Class B.
>
>> This should be an easy question, because
>> if you know what you are doing, you have PLANNED the flight, you know
>> exactly what to expect at any time, and you will endeavor to execute the
>> flight as planned.
>
> Yes.
>
>> If you know what you are doing you will not be surprised
>> by the rate of progress of your airplane, because you are keeping a log that
>> allows you to keep track of progress and respond confidently when ATC
>> requests an anticipated waypoint crossing.
>
> I'm unaccustomed to the extremely slow speed of a 152, and I usually don't
> keep much of a log.
>
>> If you knew what you were doing
>> you would not 'become nervous' due to not knowing where you are, because you
>> will have planned and execute the methods used to know where you are.
>
> Yes. That's why I asked about it. I only count one useful answer so far.
>
>> You say the 152 is 'pokey’ yet due to your lack of preparation you
>> still manage to be way behind it.
>
> I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
> same thing.
>
>> Of course you will not do any of these things, which any real pilot would
>> consider essential to the positive outcome of the flight as you describe it,
>> as you find them tedious and boring.
>
> I find some things tedious and boring, others not. It's a risk-benefit
> analysis. Keeping a log while praticing in the pattern seems unwarranted to
> me, for example. Keeping a log while flying at night over mountains makes
> perfect sense, although I don't like to interrupt my scan any more than
> necessary.

You haven't a clue what "log" is being discussed, how you generate one, how
you use one, or what its purpose is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 5:51*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Yes there is. *ATC in simulation did not act like it would in the real
> > world.
>
> The controller was a real person. What did he do that was unrealistic?

If you don't know this, then obviously my answer doesn't mean a
thing. Oh I forgot, I fly in the real ATC system.

I will give you a hint. You were playing in simulated VFR conditions.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 5:58*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I wasn't behind it, I simply wasn't sure about my position, which isn't the
> same thing.

YES IT IS.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> ... obviously my answer doesn't mean a thing.

Unfortunately, I agree.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 9:59*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > ... obviously my answer doesn't mean a thing.
>
> Unfortunately, I agree.

SO WHY DID YOU ASK???????????

Now you have PROVEN you are a troll and NOT HERE TO LEARN FROM REAL
EXPERIENCES.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> SO WHY DID YOU ASK???????????

Because there are many other people reading this newsgroup, some of whom
actually know enough to answer the question.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 28, 5:37*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > SO WHY DID YOU ASK???????????
>
> Because there are many other people reading this newsgroup,

AGAIN, I ASK YOU, WHY DID YOU ASK ME the following question. YOU
REPLIED TO MY POST.

>The controller was a real person. What did he do that was unrealistic?

AND THEN YOU COME BACK WITH

> writes:
> > ... obviously my answer doesn't mean a thing.

> Unfortunately, I agree.

YOU AGAIN are proven a dayem TROLL. YOU ARE NOT HERE TO LEARN FROM
REAL WORLD EXERIENCE.

>some of whom actually know enough to answer the question.

YOU DON"T HAVE real world experience!!!!!!!! I GAVE YOU THE ANSWER.

So, how do you know that I did not answer the question since YOU DON'T
FLY an airplane?????????????????

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 26, 5:39*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Exclude pilotage
>
> You should really put this at the top of your message next time, instead
> of after 7 paragraphs of less relevant detail. Given that the two
> airports are less than 32nm apart, that there are numerous landmarks
> along the way, and that even dead reckoning will do a fine job of
> depositing you close enough to your destination, I'm sure that everyone
> wading through your seven previous paragraphs was repeatedly thinking,
> "LOOK OUT THE WINDOW!" There can be merit in rejecting the obvious
> solution, but if you're going to do it, you should do it right at the
> start.
>
> Some more concrete advice: pilotage really does work, very well. If you
> want to practice other techniques, a stopwatch and a look at your
> airspeed indicator will help you avoid that odd problem of always having
> the impression that you've gone further than you actually have. Finally,
> although there are indeed a lot of small airfields in the area, a quick
> glance at the sectional reveals that virtually all of them have runways
> pointed in different directions, so a quick way to figure out which one
> you're looking at would be to read the gigantic numbers painted on the
> threshold and compare with what's on the chart.
>
> Oh, and one more thing: VFR-worthy GPS units are really cheap, and help
> with this sort of problem immensely. An imaginary VFR-worthy GPS is
> probably *really* cheap, and these days is probably more realistic than
> going without one.
>
> If any of this wasn't already blindingly obvious to you, then I suggest
> your vast experience with aircraft simulation may have taught you less
> about flying than you think it has.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, the reality is, any student who is past solo who gets lost (let
me define that -- does not know where he is) on a 30 some ,mile flight
should not have been signed off by his instructor.

Any pilot holding an instrument rating even with a minimal panel who
does not know where he is should be required to undergo retraining. In
the real world I'd like ATC to let the FAA know when pilots screw up,
because a survivable screw up now may not be survivable the next time.
In the real world we are required to have some 'book learning', in the
sim one all one needs is a computer and the software.

[Mark Hansen]

On 6/28/2010 6:27 AM, a wrote:
> In
> the real world I'd like ATC to let the FAA know when pilots screw up,
> because a survivable screw up now may not be survivable the next time.

All you will do there is cause much higher accident/fatality rates as
you will encourage anyone that needs help to *not* ask for it.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Stephen!" > wrote:

> WARNING!! These pictures are *NOT* recommended viewing for those who pee
> their pants when they think of flying across open water in a single
> engine aircraft!
>
> http://imagesdesavions.com/xcntry/nmi/index.html

Impressive! What kind of safety equipment do you have on board for that?
That does seem scary to me, but it's comforting to think that at least
the water is probably decently warm.

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

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Stephen!" > wrote:

> Mike Ash > wrote in news:mike-6301E3.00192329062010@62-
> 183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi:
>
> >> http://imagesdesavions.com/xcntry/nmi/index.html
> >
> > Impressive! What kind of safety equipment do you have on board for that?
> > That does seem scary to me, but it's comforting to think that at least
> > the water is probably decently warm.
>
> Every flight more than gliding distance from the shoreline had me
> carrying a four-man raft with full provisions and wearing an inflatable
> life vest. I also never fly without a hand-held radio and cell phone. The
> cell phone wouldn't have done much good 50 miles off shore but the raft,
> vest, and radio woulda been handy.

Excellent. I'm sure that helps give some peace of mind, although I'd
definitely want to avoid using that equipment if possible....

> This was in the days long before SPOT tracking but if I were flying
> around there now, I'd likely have one.

I fly with a SPOT. I mostly use it for the tracking mode so friends and
family can know what I'm up to while I'm in the air, but its use for
emergency signaling helps give me peace of mind. It's definitely a neat
piece of technology.

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

[Brian Whatcott]

Mike Ash wrote:
> In article >,
> "Stephen!" > wrote:
>
>> WARNING!! These pictures are *NOT* recommended viewing for those who pee
>> their pants when they think of flying across open water in a single
>> engine aircraft!
>>
>> http://imagesdesavions.com/xcntry/nmi/index.html
>
> Impressive! What kind of safety equipment do you have on board for that?
> That does seem scary to me, but it's comforting to think that at least
> the water is probably decently warm.
>

I think you do well to be scared.
A flight over water means that the worst moment is half way.
It is then that given the option, you should be high enough
to glide ashore. A flight required to stay low for a
57 mile trip had better have at least a lifejacket and an
ELT or some such.

Brian W

[Peter Dohm]

"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:936e4ca2-5f71-402d-ab98-
> :
>
>> Use your compass / DI and allow for the drift expected from winds at
>> your altitude.
>
>
> Now do it at 1500' MSL from PGSN to PGUM *without* a GPS and you've got
> the return leg of one of my student solo cross "country" flights. 57 nm
> between visual checkpoints across open water. At 1500' I was below both
> the VOR and the RADAR on Guam. All I had to keep me company was my Mag
> Compass, DG, and the COM radio until I got near Rota. The VOR was
> flagged most the way back.
>
> An unexpected/unpredicted cloud base moved in and I had the choice of
> staying below or trying to get above them. Stopping in Saipan was *not*
> an option. I wasn't even allowed to make the standard stop for log book
> signing. Touch-and-go only due to Customs and Immigration regulations.
> Still proud of my ded-reckoning on that one. When Rota finally came into
> view, it was only 2° off my port bow.
>
> Here are some snapshots of a time when the weather was better and I was
> able to make the flight by visual checkpoints the entire way (I saw Rota
> from 57 miles away):
>
> WARNING!! These pictures are *NOT* recommended viewing for those who pee
> their pants when they think of flying across open water in a single
> engine aircraft!
>
> http://imagesdesavions.com/xcntry/nmi/index.html
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465
> http://imagesdesavions.com

It looks a lot like the Bahamas, only more grass and greener trees--perhaps
the soil is better.

BTW, I understand that it was always quite common for dual students to be
less than one mile off course when arriving at Bimini from Opa Locka. That
was about 60nm and KOPF did have a reasonably well maintained compass rose
back when I was familiar there--and I, too, did arrive very nearly on
course. Then again, the compass variation is small here on the east coast,
so we do have it pretty easy.

Peter

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 29, 1:24*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Stephen!" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Flaps_50!" > wrote in news:936e4ca2-5f71-402d-ab98-
> > :
>
> >> Use your compass / DI and allow for the drift expected from winds at
> >> your altitude.
>
> > *Now do it at 1500' MSL from PGSN to PGUM *without* a GPS and you've got
> > the return leg of one of my student solo cross "country" flights. *57 nm
> > between visual checkpoints across open water. *At 1500' I was below both
> > the VOR and the RADAR on Guam. *All I had to keep me company was my Mag
> > Compass, DG, and the COM radio until I got near Rota. *The VOR was
> > flagged most the way back.
>
> > *An unexpected/unpredicted cloud base moved in and I had the choice of
> > staying below or trying to get above them. *Stopping in Saipan was *not*
> > an option. *I wasn't even allowed to make the standard stop for log book
> > signing. *Touch-and-go only due to Customs and Immigration regulations.
> > Still proud of my ded-reckoning on that one. *When Rota finally came into
> > view, it was only 2 off my port bow.
>
> > *Here are some snapshots of a time when the weather was better and I was
> > able to make the flight by visual checkpoints the entire way (I saw Rota
> > from 57 miles away):
>
> > WARNING!! These pictures are *NOT* recommended viewing for those who pee
> > their pants when they think of flying across open water in a single
> > engine aircraft!
>
> >http://imagesdesavions.com/xcntry/nmi/index.html
>
> > --
> > RCOS #7
> > IBA# 11465
> >http://imagesdesavions.com
>
> It looks a lot like the Bahamas, only more grass and greener trees--perhaps
> the soil is better.
>
> BTW, I understand that it was always quite common for dual students to be
> less than one mile off course when arriving at Bimini from Opa Locka. *That
> was about 60nm and KOPF did have a reasonably well maintained compass rose
> back when I was familiar there--and I, too, did arrive very nearly on
> course. *Then again, the compass variation is small here on the east coast,
> so we do have it pretty easy.
>
> Peter

Re the Bahamas: some time ago I decided to go from Grand Bahama Island
to Nassau. While en route was told to delay my arrival time by a half
hour or 45 minutes because of thunderstorms. It was blue skies where
we were, and just to the side was an island with a dirt strip that
looked really inviting. I dragged the strip -- 500 feet, dirty, and it
looked like a great place to stop for a while. "OK" I told my pax,
"let's do that". I got back to about 900 feet, flew a downwind, base,
turned onto final, and we saw some people come out to the runway:
probably only two or three, but at the time it looked like an army
because they were all carrying long guns. I decided the message was,
this was a very private airstrip. Throttle forward, gear and flaps up,
and we got out of there pretty quickly. Then flew in circles for a
half hour.

Same trip after clearing customs in as I remember Hollywood FL, I had
finished a weather briefing and was approached by a guy who asked if I
was flying to Boston. He overheard part of the briefing. I told that
was my plan. He told me he had two hundred pounds of delicate
electronics he needed to get to Boston, and if I could hang around for
an hour he'd get them into my airplane. Then, with a wink, he said if
I took them I could keep a couple of pounds for myself.

I was wheels up very soon after that.

Electronics by the pound: interesting idea, isn't it?

[george]

On Jun 30, 4:56*am, brian whatcott > wrote:

> I think you do well to be scared.
> A flight over water means that the worst moment is half way.
> It is then that given the option, you should be high enough
> to glide ashore. * *A flight required to stay low for a
> 57 mile trip had better have at least a lifejacket and an
> ELT or some such.

I don't know about scared but I certainly know about being prepared
when over water.
Then the only 'where I was' was the Flight Plan and radio and
floatation gear an inflatable life vest.
Accompanied by automatic rough as I got further from land.
Briefing friends/pax before any cross Cook Strait flight always
brought it home to me the picture the media has of anything smaller
than a B747 being a 'small' and therefore inherently dangerous
machine to 'brave the elements in'

[Peter Dohm]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 29, 1:24 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> Re the Bahamas: some time ago I decided to go from Grand Bahama Island
> to Nassau. While en route was told to delay my arrival time by a half
> hour or 45 minutes because of thunderstorms. It was blue skies where
> we were, and just to the side was an island with a dirt strip that
> looked really inviting. I dragged the strip -- 500 feet, dirty, and it
> looked like a great place to stop for a while. "OK" I told my pax,
> "let's do that". I got back to about 900 feet, flew a downwind, base,
> turned onto final, and we saw some people come out to the runway:
> probably only two or three, but at the time it looked like an army
> because they were all carrying long guns. I decided the message was,
> this was a very private airstrip. Throttle forward, gear and flaps up,
> and we got out of there pretty quickly. Then flew in circles for a
> half hour.
>
> Same trip after clearing customs in as I remember Hollywood FL, I had
> finished a weather briefing and was approached by a guy who asked if I
> was flying to Boston. He overheard part of the briefing. I told that
> was my plan. He told me he had two hundred pounds of delicate
> electronics he needed to get to Boston, and if I could hang around for
> an hour he'd get them into my airplane. Then, with a wink, he said if
> I took them I could keep a couple of pounds for myself.
>
> I was wheels up very soon after that.
>
> Electronics by the pound: interesting idea, isn't it?
>
You know, it's really a share that I don't have the talent as a writer;
because this is one of those locations with oodles of really first rate
material for a novelist!

But, alas, I just don't have what it takes.

Peter

[FlyCherokee]

On Jun 26, 12:59*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> From Phoenix to Casa Grande in a Cessna 152 in my sim:
>
> The aircraft contains only a single VOR, without DME, and an ADF.
>
> There are a couple of VORs nearby, including PXR at Sky Harbor, and Stanfield
> about 8 miles southwest of Casa Grande (connected by V105/J92). There's also a
> NDB at Chandler, about 19 miles north.
>
> What is the most elegant way to navigate from KPHX to KCGZ?
>
> I thought it would be good form to follow V105, so after a west departure from
> Phoenix, I flew east to join the PXR 163 radial. It was hard to judge my
> distance from the VOR, though, as the desert looks pretty monotonous, and
> there are numerous small airfields in the area. After flying for a while, I
> decided to tune the CHD NDB and try to figure out an intersection that would
> place me over the field. Constant adjustment of the ADF card for this purpose
> was awkward, though, and did not improve my confidence that I was going the
> right way. The 152 is very pokey and I always have the impression that I've
> gone further than I actually have.
>
> Finally I got nervous and turned east to pick up the PXR148 radial. I had
> flight following and Center knew my destination, and ATC asked me what I was
> doing after I made the turn, since apparently I had been headed straight
> towards the airport. I explained and when ATC told me where to look for the
> airport, I turned that way, and after a minute or two I spotted hangars at
> Casa Grande.
>
> This does not seem very elegant to me. What is the best way to navigate this
> route under these conditions?
>
> Exclude pilotage, since this was an exercise in navigation by instruments
> despite being VFR in VMC. (If I had been using pilotage, I would have simply
> followed Interstate 10, which practically leads to the ramp, but I
> deliberately avoided looking for the highway.)
>
> I conducted the flight mostly at 3500 feet, although I suppose that's not very
> important here.

I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
navigation log before your flight. Even when following the VORs,
airways, etc, you need a basic nav log to predict and keep track of
your position throughout the flight. I think Flight Simulator has
this function(?), but you should make it by hand, if you've never done
it, to help understand how it works. With the Nav log, you wouldn't
try to "...judge my distance from the VOR..." by looking for it; you'd
know approximately when you were going to cross it by looking at your
clock.

I don't think I would have followed V105 in this case, I would've just
followed the appropriate radial outbound from PXR VOR, followed my
position using the clock and my nav log, checked my position about
midway by switching my VOR momentarily to either of the neighboring
VORs, then watched the clock again to make sure I didn't fly past the
airport.

But the key to all that is the nav log you make before your flight.
All the times and positions of the key points, including the midway
waypoint is on the log, then you just follow along. If your planned
waypoint doesn't appear at the proper time, then you take measures to
reestablish your position.

By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.

I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
and then changed my mind once in the air.

> You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
> navigation log before your flight.

No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

> Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav
> log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight.

I have a mental plan of sorts, but I don't write it down. I often plot things
on SkyVector and use that to derive points that I must verify during flight.

> I think Flight Simulator has
> this function(?), but you should make it by hand, if you've never done
> it, to help understand how it works. With the Nav log, you wouldn't
> try to "...judge my distance from the VOR..." by looking for it; you'd
> know approximately when you were going to cross it by looking at your
> clock.

Thus far I've made virtually no attempt to do anything by the clock, although
I suppose I should. The inability to determine my actual ground speed
discourages me from trying to calculate anything involving speed vs. time. In
order to determine my position through dead reckoning, I need to know my
ground speed. But in order to determine my ground speed, I need to know my
position. If I know neither ground speed nor position, it's not immediately
obvious to me how I'm going to solve for either of them.

> I don't think I would have followed V105 in this case, I would've just
> followed the appropriate radial outbound from PXR VOR, followed my
> position using the clock and my nav log, checked my position about
> midway by switching my VOR momentarily to either of the neighboring
> VORs, then watched the clock again to make sure I didn't fly past the
> airport.

How would you determine your ground speed?

> But the key to all that is the nav log you make before your flight.
> All the times and positions of the key points, including the midway
> waypoint is on the log, then you just follow along. If your planned
> waypoint doesn't appear at the proper time, then you take measures to
> reestablish your position.

But here again, I need an accurate ground speed to make these kinds of
calculations, which is problematic if I don't have an accurate position.

A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
this information going to be?

> By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.

It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
mirror what my result in real life would be.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> FlyCherokee writes:
>
>> I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.
>
> I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
> and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
> cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
> and then changed my mind once in the air.
>
>> You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
>> navigation log before your flight.
>
> No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
> misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
> there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
> room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.

Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>> You can exclude pilotage, but it doesn't sound like you created a
>> navigation log before your flight.
>
>No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
>misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log
my
>progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
>there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
>room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.
>



Forgetting things that are not facts is the same as not knowing the facts. A
navigation log is the word pilots, instructors, textbooks, schools publishers
use for, well a navigation log. It is not a misnomer for anything. It has
always been called a navigation log, because you log your progress. Learned
early in pilot training, its use is essential to the successful outcome of
every flight, VFR or IFR. It is the link between the planning and execution
phases of every flight. Today, the use of the nav log in flight is beginning
to become less critical, as the GPS navigators and glass cockpits do all of
its functions automatically, and flight planning software can upload the
planning data directly to the navigator, but many pilots keep a log anyway.
Certainly a pilot who refuses GPS and glass cockpits cannot simulate real
flight without a log. Little wonder you got lost!

Do you think there are large, open desks with desk lamps in airplanes? For the
decades I’ve been flying I have never been on a flight where I didn’t have
something on my lap or knee to write on. This is essential to every flight.
You believe, and you want us to believe that your simulation is good enough
that you could step into a real flight environment without difficulty, and now
you admit you don’t know what a navigation log is and you never write anything
down because there is not enough desk space and not enough light!

A Cessna 152 is an extremely fast machine. It travels at 90Kt; more than 30
times man’s normal walking speed. All of our reflexes and responses are, on an
evolutionary scale, tuned to this walking speed. To manage a transportation
device that travels at thirty times this speed requires special training.
Since you do not have this training, it comes as no surprise that your
simulated efforts result in your being far behind the airplane, unable to keep
up with events.

You are, of course, free to use this simulation program in any way you please,
and there is nothing to criticize in having fun with the parts you enjoy. You
must however put aside any notion that your exercise is a faithful simulation
of the use of any real airplane, or that your experiences could translate to
any useful skill in operating a real airplane.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But here again, I need an accurate ground speed to make these kinds of
> calculations, which is problematic if I don't have an accurate position.
>
> A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
> this information going to be?

Accurate enough that this is how real pilots actually do this stuff out
in the real world. A difference of a few knots or a few degrees is not
going to wreck your navigation plan anyway.

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

[FlyCherokee]

On Jul 2, 10:47*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> FlyCherokee writes:
> > I would've climbed a bit higher, for safety, in that terrain.
>
> I considered that, but it was a daylight flight and the C152 is rather anemic,
> and a review of the maximum elevation figures in the quadrants I planned to
> cross revealed nothing higher than 2900. I think I might have filed for 5500
> and then changed my mind once in the air.
In addition to considering the max elevations of peaks, ridges,
towers, etc in the area, I generally like about 3000 AGL minimum for
safety in case of engine failure. That doesn't necessarily mean 3000
over the highest thing in the area, but 3000 over the predominant
terrain level (to leave enough gliding time and range)

> No, I did not. I had forgotten that navigation log is a widespread aviation
> misnomer for a navigation plan. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
> there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
> room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.
>
> > Even when following the VORs, airways, etc, you need a basic nav
> > log to predict and keep track of your position throughout the flight. *

You should work this into your sim flying. It is one of the
differences between actual flying and simulator experience: In actual
flight training, a flight instructor would emphasize the importance of
a nav log, and would not let you fly cross country without one. You
would feel the need yourself, because being lost (for real) in a small
airplane is a scary and life-threatening situation; sooner or later
the fuel is going to run out and you are going to land, if not on a
runway, then somewhere, but you are surely coming down. It's very
important (and just plain good airmanship) to always know where you
are, and the nav log is one of the basic tools for doing this.

If you think you have little room on your table for writing, then
please go to your local small airport and ask to sit in a 172. Then
imagine getting jerked around in turbulence while trying to unfold and
refold a sectional chart, while computing wind speed on the E6B, and
updating you nav log on a tiny clipboard that's strapped to your right
leg, all while maintaining course and altitude and scanning for
traffic!

>
> Thus far I've made virtually no attempt to do anything by the clock, although
> I suppose I should. The inability to determine my actual ground speed
> discourages me from trying to calculate anything involving speed vs. time.. In
> order to determine my position through dead reckoning, I need to know my
> ground speed. But in order to determine my ground speed, I need to know my
> position. If I know neither ground speed nor position, it's not immediately
> obvious to me how I'm going to solve for either of them.
>
The clock and compass are your most fundamental nav tools, and
certainly you can estimate your ground speed! I think your missing
some of the most fun parts of navigating!; i.e., a course line on a
chart, a compass, a clock, and a bunch of waypoints to check your
position/speed and progress. You estimate your ground speed by
setting up waypoints along your course, timing your motion between
them, and then computing ground speed. Or, better, get yourself an
E6B flight computer which will calculate this and the actual wind.
Then you use that calculated wind to recompute the predicted times to
your subsequent waypoints.

Use ground features for waypoints, e.g., crossing rivers, lakes,
highways, etc. If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
radials as waypoints. If none of those, then I would chart a
different course so that I had something to verify my position. I
think the basic flying handbooks from the FAA show to do these
computations.

>
> A possibility might be accurate knowledge of winds aloft, but how accurate is
> this information going to be?

Today's winds-aloft forecasts are more than good enough for
navigation. Also, you will directly calculate the winds at your
altitude when you reach your first waypoint.
>
> > By the way, Flight Simulator is perfect for this kind of practice.
>
> It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
> mirror what my result in real life would be.
For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
job in this area.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 8:40*am, FlyCherokee > wrote:

> For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
> job in this area.

For flight planning and getting familiar with IFR procedures,
absolutely.

For flying a real plane absolutely NOT.

Mx thinks he can go from MSFS to a real plane when he says

<Quoting Mx below>
>My failure or success in the sim should accurately
> mirror what my result in real life would be.

He is sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
REAL PLANE.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...

I agree.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
writes:
>
>> Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...
>
>I agree.


I have to agree as well.
An inept pilot, with no real understanding of flight planning or
navigation, launches on a VFR trip without any plan for how to execute
the flight and no tools to monitor progress. The result is he gets
behind the airplane, gets completely lost, executes bungling routing
maneuvers to try to get oriented and ATC has to intervene to clean up
the mess before he become a danger to himself and others. MSFS did a
fairly good job of showing this pilot how inept he was.

Does MSFS have an NTSB reporting function?

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> In addition to considering the max elevations of peaks, ridges,
> towers, etc in the area, I generally like about 3000 AGL minimum for
> safety in case of engine failure. That doesn't necessarily mean 3000
> over the highest thing in the area, but 3000 over the predominant
> terrain level (to leave enough gliding time and range)

Point taken. Does this depend on the type of terrain or do you apply it as a
universal rule? Or do you relate it to the number of suitable airfields within
range?

I had not given engine failure much thought. Most of this comes from the
complacency that results when one knows that the engine cannot fail (in a sim,
failures occur only if the sim has been set to allow them). Here again, I note
that if I had stuck to my original filed altitude, I'd have about eight miles
of gliding range, which, along my originally filed route, would keep me within
range of an airfield for the entire flight. So I have another reason not to
cut corners on the altitude. The terrain is moderately smooth in the area and
flat spots for an emergency landing probably wouldn't be too hard to find from
any position along the original route, but I do not relish the thought of
crashing through sagebrush on desert dirt.

I note that had I taken the 148 radial directly, I'd be further away from
suitable airfields (although that was not something that I had noticed or
taken into consideration during flight planning).

> You should work this into your sim flying. It is one of the
> differences between actual flying and simulator experience: In actual
> flight training, a flight instructor would emphasize the importance of
> a nav log, and would not let you fly cross country without one. You
> would feel the need yourself, because being lost (for real) in a small
> airplane is a scary and life-threatening situation; sooner or later
> the fuel is going to run out and you are going to land, if not on a
> runway, then somewhere, but you are surely coming down. It's very
> important (and just plain good airmanship) to always know where you
> are, and the nav log is one of the basic tools for doing this.

I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
busy.

Anyway, it is possible to become spooked during a simulation, too, if you are
able to suspend disbelief and use a bit of imagination. If you aren't,
simulation probably won't be enjoyable and won't provide much in the way of
learning or useful experience.

On occasions when I have been scared by a simulation, it has been when I got
into trouble or crashed because of some mistake I made. The behavior of the
sim was exactly like real life within the context of the mistake, and it
occurred to me that if I had made the same mistake in real life, I'd be dead,
which is a sobering thought. The incident that sticks in my mind was a flight
during which I had become just a bit too complacent, allowing me to hit the
side of a hill not long after takeoff (at night). All I saw was some trees and
bushes suddenly right ahead of me, and then boom. In the postmortem analysis I
saw what I had done wrong, but it significantly upset me because it was clear
that there was no error in the simulation that I could use to pretend that it
wasn't my fault--in real life, I would have hit that hill just as surely as I
did in the sim, and for exactly the same reasons. The sim did a superb job of
simulating my demise.

> If you think you have little room on your table for writing, then
> please go to your local small airport and ask to sit in a 172. Then
> imagine getting jerked around in turbulence while trying to unfold and
> refold a sectional chart, while computing wind speed on the E6B, and
> updating you nav log on a tiny clipboard that's strapped to your right
> leg, all while maintaining course and altitude and scanning for
> traffic!

You make it sound like quite an ordeal. I hope you are describing a worst-case
scenario.

If I were flying for real, probably one of my first investments would be an
electronic flight bag, in order to eliminate some of that clutter and
confusion. Ideally an EFB that I could write on would be great (but I don't
think such exists at the moment).

> The clock and compass are your most fundamental nav tools, and
> certainly you can estimate your ground speed! I think your missing
> some of the most fun parts of navigating!; i.e., a course line on a
> chart, a compass, a clock, and a bunch of waypoints to check your
> position/speed and progress.

I'll try some exercises with a clock. Up to now, I've only very rarely used
timing for navigation, mostly in holds. Usually the aircraft is equipped well
enough to make it unnecessary, with the exception of the C152.

> Or, better, get yourself an
> E6B flight computer which will calculate this and the actual wind.
> Then you use that calculated wind to recompute the predicted times to
> your subsequent waypoints.

I have an E6B, but it's very awkward to use. I have two little programs for my
PDA that also perform calculations, but that's a bit awkward, too. But I guess
I can try them again.

> Use ground features for waypoints, e.g., crossing rivers, lakes,
> highways, etc.

I usually do okay with pilotage. The sim does not have breathtaking scenery,
but the developers included most of the features you need to relate the
terrain outside to the charts, making pilotage perfectly practical. If you see
a highway and some power lines on the charts, you'll see them in the sim, too.
Rivers rarely look as they do in real life, but you can still spot them and
relate them to the charts.

> If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
> radials as waypoints.

If I have two VOR receivers! My pokey little C152 has but one.

> If none of those, then I would chart a different course so that I
> had something to verify my position.

I've done this in the past for pure pilotage. It seems to work pretty well.

> Today's winds-aloft forecasts are more than good enough for
> navigation. Also, you will directly calculate the winds at your
> altitude when you reach your first waypoint.

But if you need to know winds aloft (hence ground speed) to find your first
waypoint ...

So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? The
pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.

> For 40 or 50 dollars, I think Flight Simulator does a remarkably good
> job in this area.

And with a few add-ons, you can improve it by at least an order of magnitude
or better. Some flight controls are a good investment, and payware add-on
aircraft are very important, since the default aircraft involve many
deliberate compromises in order to reach a wider market.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> He is sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
> REAL PLANE.

That depends on the situation. In many simulation scenarios, your experience
in the simulation precisely mirrors what it would be in real life. In
particular, this means that if you make a foolish mistake in the simulated
flight and kill yourself, you would also be dead in real life ... you cannot
claim that some error in the simulation is responsible for the crash.

I pity real-world pilots who continually dismiss simulation. They do
themselves a disservice. Since the prevent themselves from learning from
mistakes in a simulator, the only way they can learn from mistakes is in a
real airplane--and if the mistake leads to impact with terrain, learning from
it at that point is too late.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...
>
> I agree.

Let's add sarcasm to the list of things about which you know little to
nothing.

Sitting in front of a small table in a dark room with the only illumination
being from a computer monitor is not a realistic simulation of flying an
airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
writes:
>>
>>> Sure sounds like a realistic "simulation" to me...
>>
>>I agree.
>
>
> I have to agree as well.
> An inept pilot, with no real understanding of flight planning or
> navigation, launches on a VFR trip without any plan for how to execute
> the flight and no tools to monitor progress. The result is he gets
> behind the airplane, gets completely lost, executes bungling routing
> maneuvers to try to get oriented and ATC has to intervene to clean up
> the mess before he become a danger to himself and others. MSFS did a
> fairly good job of showing this pilot how inept he was.

In that respect, yes, it was a good simulation of a clueless naif trying
to fly an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,


In article >,
> wrote:
>> If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
>> radials as waypoints.
>
> If I have two VOR receivers! My pokey little C152 has but one.

You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.

Andy

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
> simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
> doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
> busy.

I posted you a link to some PDF ones months ago, which you chose to ignore
as you couldn't be bothered with such useless paperwork.

Since you haven't a clue how they are used, saying you will make your own
is laughable.

They are "very busy" because there is a lot of information that has to go
on them and the well formatted ones will print on standard paper and fold
up conviently to fit a knee board. Real airplanes don't have a table in the
cockpit.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Jul 5, 7:00*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> >> If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
> >> radials as waypoints.
>
> > If I have two VOR receivers! *My pokey little C152 has but one.
>
> You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.
>
But only in a real aeroplane...

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? The
> pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
> I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
> applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.

Aviationweather.gov is a good start. Here, for example, are winds aloft
forecast for PHX and others in the region:

http://aviationweather.gov/products/nws/winds/?area=saltlake&fint=06&lvl=
lo

You can also get point sounding forecasts from NOAA's ARL:

http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/READYcmet.php

Put "PHX" into the box there and then get a sounding forecast with the
12km NAM model, and pick the Javascript animation type.

In my experience these are highly accurate up to a day in advance, and
reasonably accurate up to two days in advance.

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

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 4, 3:00*pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * > wrote:
>
> >> If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
> >> radials as waypoints.
>
> > If I have two VOR receivers! *My pokey little C152 has but one.
>
> You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.
>
> Andy

This sim flyer thinks, from about 2400 feet above ground level he has
an 8 mile gliding range in a 152. No CFI would sign off on a pilot who
was aiming at a field 8 miles away. At best there would be only 1500
feet of vertical allowed before a pilot had better be over the
intended unimproved field rather than stalling in on short final to a
nice airport 8 miles away.

This same sim flyer thinks our circular slide rules are difficult to
use. Would any CFI sign a student off on a solo cross country who
could not use one?

Or sign off a student or pass someone on their BFI who found it
inconvenient to have a flight plan on something other than pattern
work or to and from the practice area?

Or who found it 'awkward' to keep a written howgozit flight log during
a flight? (Some of you may find this worth doing. My steno pads have a
sheet devoted to flight plan, wx notes, clearance, and en route notes
including updated etas and changes. I have a stack of those, and can
'relive' any flight I where I was PIC from about my 200 hours total
time point until now by looking at the notes. Once you adopt a format
it's easy and automatic, and the spiral spring is a neat place to hold
a pencil.)

Who here needs to be lectured by someone who is so far removed from
the basics of flying?

[Mxsmanic]

Andy Hawkins writes:

> You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.

How?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Aviationweather.gov is a good start.

That's what I currently use.

> http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/READYcmet.php
>
> Put "PHX" into the box there and then get a sounding forecast with the
> 12km NAM model, and pick the Javascript animation type.

Cool! I had not run across that before. Thanks.

> In my experience these are highly accurate up to a day in advance, and
> reasonably accurate up to two days in advance.

Well, I usually look at the weather just before I depart, but it's still good
to have.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> This sim flyer thinks, from about 2400 feet above ground level he has
> an 8 mile gliding range in a 152.

No, from 5500 feet, which was my original filed altitude. That figure comes
directly from the POH. Best glide is 60 KIAS, with flaps up, and the glide
distance is 8 nm at 5000 feet AGL.

> No CFI would sign off on a pilot who was aiming at a field 8 miles away.

Jet airliners routinely aim at fields nearly 100 miles away while gliding down
to a landing.

> At best there would be only 1500
> feet of vertical allowed before a pilot had better be over the
> intended unimproved field rather than stalling in on short final to a
> nice airport 8 miles away.

Emergency situations have a way of not respecting the rules.

> This same sim flyer thinks our circular slide rules are difficult to
> use. Would any CFI sign a student off on a solo cross country who
> could not use one?

Because he had a calculator?

Should a CFI sign off a student who needs a slide rule to do his calculations?
Shouldn't he be able to do them on paper with a pencil?

> I have a stack of those, and can
> 'relive' any flight I where I was PIC from about my 200 hours total
> time point until now by looking at the notes.

You can simulate the flights, in other words. But what's the purpose of
simulation if it is so unlike real life?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins writes:
>
>> You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.
>
> How?

The first step is to fill out a flight planning form.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 4, 5:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > This sim flyer thinks, from about 2400 feet above ground level he has
> > an 8 mile gliding range in a 152.
>
> No, from 5500 feet, which was my original filed altitude. That figure comes
> directly from the POH. Best glide is 60 KIAS, with flaps up, and the glide
> distance is 8 nm at 5000 feet AGL.
>
> > No CFI would sign off on a pilot who was aiming at a field 8 miles away..
>
> Jet airliners routinely aim at fields nearly 100 miles away while gliding down
> to a landing.
>
> > At best there would be only 1500
> > feet of vertical allowed before a pilot *had better be over the
> > intended unimproved field rather than stalling in on short final to a
> > nice airport 8 miles away.
>
> Emergency situations have a way of not respecting the rules.
>
> > This same sim flyer thinks our circular slide rules are difficult to
> > use. Would any CFI sign a student off on a solo cross country who
> > could not use one?
>
> Because he had a calculator?
>
> Should a CFI sign off a student who needs a slide rule to do his calculations?
> Shouldn't he be able to do them on paper with a pencil?
>
> > I have a stack of those, and can
> > 'relive' any flight I where I was PIC from about my 200 hours total
> > time point until now by looking at the notes.
>
> You can simulate the flights, in other words. But what's the purpose of
> simulation if it is so unlike real life?

Look at your first post -- did you not write 3500? There is a history
of pilots crashing while trying to extend their range.

I and others frequently use our EB6s en route -- it's part of safe
flying and it's routine.

You've demonstrated your contempt for the training pilots undergo to
become certified. Too bad, those who don't learn from other people's
mistakes -- that's a working definition of education -- will find
themselves repeating them. Your occasional worthwhile post is far
overshadowed by your frequent errors -- this thread certainly
demonstrates that.

Pitiful, simply pitiful. You would likely benefit from professional
help -- someone with your apparent intelligence should have a life
that consists of more than sim flight as recreation.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Look at your first post -- did you not write 3500?

I filed 5500 but decided to stop at 3500.

> There is a history of pilots crashing while trying to extend
> their range.

I wasn't trying to extend my range.

> I and others frequently use our EB6s en route -- it's part of safe
> flying and it's routine.

A Real Pilot would use paper and pencil, in order to eliminate the crutch of
an E6B.

> You've demonstrated your contempt for the training pilots undergo to
> become certified.

Contempt? No. But I also have no illusions about the status of licensed
pilots. They've passed a few tests, and that's it. The only difference between
a pilot's license and a driver's license is in degree, and a license is no
guarantee of competence, much less a high level of skill.

> Too bad, those who don't learn from other people's
> mistakes -- that's a working definition of education -- will find
> themselves repeating them.

True, but I don't see the relevance of that here.

> Your occasional worthwhile post is far
> overshadowed by your frequent errors -- this thread certainly
> demonstrates that.

Your occasional mention of aviation is overshadowed by your obsession with me.
Count the number of times "you" appears in your posts, and the number of times
it appears in mine.

[george]

On Jul 5, 11:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A Real Pilot would use paper and pencil, in order to eliminate the crutch of
> an E6B.

You should drop the broom next time you're on stage and use the
above..
Your comedic career wil leap ahead..
And I'll hang onto my Whizz wheel

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A Real Pilot would use paper and pencil, in order to eliminate the crutch of
> an E6B.

A real pilot has several pencils, paper, a knee board, charts, a fully
filled out flight planning sheet, and usally something that does the functions
of an E6B.

Can you do sines and cosines in your head?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[FlyCherokee]

On Jul 4, 11:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Point taken. Does this depend on the type of terrain or do you apply it as a
> universal rule? Or do you relate it to the number of suitable airfields within
> range?
>
> I had not given engine failure much thought. Most of this comes from the
> complacency that results when one knows that the engine cannot fail (in a sim,
> failures occur only if the sim has been set to allow them). Here again, I note
> that if I had stuck to my original filed altitude, I'd have about eight miles
> of gliding range, which, along my originally filed route, would keep me within
> range of an airfield for the entire flight. So I have another reason not to
> cut corners on the altitude. The terrain is moderately smooth in the area and
> flat spots for an emergency landing probably wouldn't be too hard to find from
> any position along the original route, but I do not relish the thought of
> crashing through sagebrush on desert dirt.
>
> I note that had I taken the 148 radial directly, I'd be further away from
> suitable airfields (although that was not something that I had noticed or
> taken into consideration during flight planning).
>
I like about 3000 AGL over hospitable terrain (flat, plenty of fields
to land in, etc.). Over mountains, cities, etc, I'd be happier
higher, and I don't fly over water outside of gliding range to land.
I usually don't think at all about being near airports for
emergencies, there is usually plenty of open space beneath me to land
on.

Don't count on the published glide ratio to estimate your glide
distance. You need to save some altitude for what you lose during the
initial moments when you're getting yourself together, acknowledging a
failure, and establishing the glide, then allow some for maneuvering
when your chosen landing spot starts looking not-so-good when you get
closer to it, then allow for some more altitude to maneuver for the
actual landing. I use 1 NM max per 1000 ft of altitude when I
practice, preferably less. 1 NM per 1000 ft also just happens to be
how far I can see over the cowling when in normal cruise attitude.

>
> I'll look at some navigation logs and see what I can integrate into
> simulation. Maybe I'll make my own (I like electronic publishing), since it
> doesn't look like there is any standard. The ones I've seen have been very
> busy.
>
If I'm remembering it correctly, the one in Flight Simulator is good
enough.
>
>
> You make it sound like quite an ordeal. I hope you are describing a worst-case
> scenario.
>
Yes, usually you get only one thing at a time, but my point was that
it's very small in the airplane, but you'll still have enough room to
work on your log, you just strap a clipboard to your leg, and use that
for a desk.

> If I were flying for real, probably one of my first investments would be an
> electronic flight bag, in order to eliminate some of that clutter and
> confusion. Ideally an EFB that I could write on would be great (but I don't
> think such exists at the moment).

The electronic aides are becoming very popular, but I'm a dinosaur and
like paper charts.

>
> I usually do okay with pilotage. The sim does not have breathtaking scenery,
> but the developers included most of the features you need to relate the
> terrain outside to the charts, making pilotage perfectly practical. If you see
> a highway and some power lines on the charts, you'll see them in the sim, too.
> Rivers rarely look as they do in real life, but you can still spot them and
> relate them to the charts.

I think MS Flight Sim scenery is good enough for pilotage. In real
flying, you want to choose really obvious landmarks for your
waypoints; major rivers, major highway intersections, odd-shaped
lakes, isolated small cities, things that are not easily confused in
the air. These things are all reproduced very well in Flight Sim,
they match up with sectional charts very well.
>
> > If there is nothing suitable, then use crossing VOR
> > radials as waypoints.
>
> If I have two VOR receivers! *My pokey little C152 has but one.

No, you only need one, you just keep changing frequency to do your
cross checks. I did all my Private training 34 years ago in a 150/152
with only one VOR, it's a little more work, that's all.

>
> But if you need to know winds aloft (hence ground speed) to find your first
> waypoint ...
>
> So you're saying that the winds aloft I get from NOAA are pretty good? *The
> pages I found lack resolution, though--they show the whole United States, and
> I'd like to have more precise winds just for my flight route. There's a Java
> applet for that but it's not much of an improvement.
>

Yes, the winds aloft predictions and resolution are good enough for
flight planning, have you tried aviationweather.gov?

The general process for planning is to establish your desired course,
then use the predicted winds and your known aircraft performance to
determine your heading angle and predicted ground speed along your
flight. Then take off and fly that heading. When you get near your
first waypoint you use the difference between predicted and actual
time vs. position to make a correction for the rest of the flight. In
practice, it works pretty well, and the predicted winds are good
enough to get you near your first waypoint.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > In my experience these are highly accurate up to a day in advance, and
> > reasonably accurate up to two days in advance.
>
> Well, I usually look at the weather just before I depart, but it's still good
> to have.

If you check it just before you depart, it'll be even more accurate than
it was the night before!

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> If you check it just before you depart, it'll be even more accurate than
> it was the night before!

Yes. I simply meant that I don't plan flights very far in advance. I do all
the planning just before the flight. I also don't make very long flights,
because it's boring to sit in a cockpit for hours, so I don't generally need
forecasts beyond 60 minutes or so.

Nevertheless, I've bookmarked it as another useful resource.

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> I like about 3000 AGL over hospitable terrain (flat, plenty of fields
> to land in, etc.). Over mountains, cities, etc, I'd be happier
> higher, and I don't fly over water outside of gliding range to land.

I've tried to figure out what is safe for trips over water, although the only
flights I've done over water are relatively short ones, such as flights
between Los Angeles and Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, or between St. Bart's
and Sint Maarten.

The shortest distance over water to Avalon is about 18 nm, which would require
at least 10 nm or so of gliding distance, so I'd have to be at 6000 feet at
the midpoint of the crossing, which is doable, but I don't feel comfortable
flying the C152 over water except experimentally. (An experimental flight is
one that I wouldn't fly for real and in which I have often voluntarily
overlooked certain real-world considerations; a practical flight is one that I
might be willing to carry out in real life.)

Coincidentally, TFFJ to TNCM is also about 17 nm. I have also flown the C152
experimentally on that route. For practical flights, I prefer something with
more than one engine (but landing a Baron on St. Bart's is quite a challenge).

> Don't count on the published glide ratio to estimate your glide
> distance. You need to save some altitude for what you lose during the
> initial moments when you're getting yourself together, acknowledging a
> failure, and establishing the glide, then allow some for maneuvering
> when your chosen landing spot starts looking not-so-good when you get
> closer to it, then allow for some more altitude to maneuver for the
> actual landing. I use 1 NM max per 1000 ft of altitude when I
> practice, preferably less. 1 NM per 1000 ft also just happens to be
> how far I can see over the cowling when in normal cruise attitude.

OK, I'll try to add some margin for safety.

> If I'm remembering it correctly, the one in Flight Simulator is good
> enough.

I've never looked at it, but I will take a look. If it pauses the simulator,
though, I won't be able to use it. I don't use most of the default features of
the sim.

> The electronic aides are becoming very popular, but I'm a dinosaur and
> like paper charts.

I would keep paper charts on hand even with an electronic flight bag, even if
that would partially defeat their purpose.

> No, you only need one, you just keep changing frequency to do your
> cross checks. I did all my Private training 34 years ago in a 150/152
> with only one VOR, it's a little more work, that's all.

But you move while you are changing frequencies, so it seems to me that you'd
never be able to do better than an estimate with just one VOR.

> Yes, the winds aloft predictions and resolution are good enough for
> flight planning, have you tried aviationweather.gov?

Yes, that's what I use for winds aloft, although Active Sky (which generates
real-world weather for the sim) also will give me winds aloft for my route.

> The general process for planning is to establish your desired course,
> then use the predicted winds and your known aircraft performance to
> determine your heading angle and predicted ground speed along your
> flight. Then take off and fly that heading. When you get near your
> first waypoint you use the difference between predicted and actual
> time vs. position to make a correction for the rest of the flight. In
> practice, it works pretty well, and the predicted winds are good
> enough to get you near your first waypoint.

But how do you locate waypoints, if you don't have radio navigation aids? And
conversely, if you do have radio navigation aids, why wouldn't you just aim
for them instead of relying on dead reckoning from some previous reference
point?

I did the KPHX-KCGZ flight yesterday, but I "cheated" and used pilotage alone,
which made it very easy in the perpetual VMC of the region, with the
interstate leading me directly from one airport to the other. This time I flew
it at 5500, although it took so long to reach that altitude that I was quite
far along by the time I got there.

[Andy Hawkins]

In article >,
> wrote:
> Andy Hawkins writes:
>
>> You can do a VOR cross perfectly well with a single NAV radio.
>
> How?

Tune the first VOR, work out which radial you're on, plot that line on a
chart. You should have a rough idea of where you are so you don't need to
draw a line that stretches all the way out to the coverage of the VOR. Next,
tune in the second VOR and repeat the process. Unless you're flying at Mach
3.5 you're unlikely to have moved too far so as to make too much difference
in the position fix.

If absolute accuracy is required, once you work out which radial you're on
from the first VOR, turn to track that radial (either too or from is fine)
and make the second measurement.

Andy

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But you move while you are changing frequencies, so it seems to me that you'd
> never be able to do better than an estimate with just one VOR.

Er, you can never do better than an estimate with TWO VORs either, you
know. These things aren't exact. The question is not whether it's an
estimate (it always is), but whether your margin of error is small
enough to be useful. You don't move that far in the few seconds it takes
to change the frequency on a VOR.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> FlyCherokee writes:
>
>> I like about 3000 AGL over hospitable terrain (flat, plenty of fields
>> to land in, etc.). Over mountains, cities, etc, I'd be happier
>> higher, and I don't fly over water outside of gliding range to land.
>
> I've tried to figure out what is safe for trips over water, although the only
> flights I've done over water are relatively short ones, such as flights
> between Los Angeles and Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, or between St. Bart's
> and Sint Maarten.

You are flying a desk in a dark apartment.

It is impossible for you to do anything that is not "safe".

<snip>

>> No, you only need one, you just keep changing frequency to do your
>> cross checks. I did all my Private training 34 years ago in a 150/152
>> with only one VOR, it's a little more work, that's all.
>
> But you move while you are changing frequencies, so it seems to me that you'd
> never be able to do better than an estimate with just one VOR.

It is done by real pilots all the time.

You don't need position accuracy to multiple decimal places.

<snip>

> But how do you locate waypoints, if you don't have radio navigation aids? And
> conversely, if you do have radio navigation aids, why wouldn't you just aim
> for them instead of relying on dead reckoning from some previous reference
> point?

You pick waypoints that are easy to identify in the first place.

When your clock says you should be getting close according to the information
on your flight planning form, you start looking for it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[FlyCherokee]

On Jul 5, 4:13*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>... (An experimental flight is
> one that I wouldn't fly for real and in which I have often voluntarily
> overlooked certain real-world considerations; a practical flight is one that I
> might be willing to carry out in real life.)
I use Flight Sim for this also, I suspect it's common. I fly into/out
of small strips in mountainous terrain, fly long distance over water
using just compass and clock and try to find islands, etc.

>
> I've never looked at it, but I will take a look. If it pauses the simulator,
> though, I won't be able to use it. I don't use most of the default features of
> the sim.
No, just use it to make your navigation plan before you start, then
print it out, then that paper becomes your nav log for the flight. It
should have times and magnetic headings to all of your waypoints. I
also put any relevant frequencies and other important info on mind,
e.g., pattern altitude and direction, etc.
>
>
> > No, you only need one, you just keep changing frequency to do your
> > cross checks. *I did all my Private training 34 years ago in a 150/152
> > with only one VOR, it's a little more work, that's all.
>
> But you move while you are changing frequencies, so it seems to me that you'd
> never be able to do better than an estimate with just one VOR.
>
No, there are lots of sources of error when doing this for position
estimation. The error due to your movement between VOR checks is
small and not a problem, unless you are a really slow frequency
changer. Position estimates derived from VOR cross checks are fairly
sloppy; I wouldn't count on better than a mile or so, probably worse.
If a remember correctly, the VOR accuracy requirement is +- 4 deg (?),
that's +- 2 NM at 30 NM from the VOR, then you have to draw a pencil
line on your sectional by lining up the proper radial in a bouncing
airplane. There's lots of error in this process, but the answer is
plenty good enough for general VFR navigation.

>
> > The general process for planning is to establish your desired course,
> > then use the predicted winds and your known aircraft performance to
> > determine your heading angle and predicted ground speed along your
> > flight. *Then take off and fly that heading. *When you get near your
> > first waypoint you use the difference between predicted and actual
> > time vs. position to make a correction for the rest of the flight. *In
> > practice, it works pretty well, and the predicted winds are good
> > enough to get you near your first waypoint.
>
> But how do you locate waypoints, if you don't have radio navigation aids?

You just fly the heading that's on your flight plan until the clock
says you're there. Then you look around until you find the landmark's
actual position. (Actually, you'll be looking for the landmark all
along, eventually you'll spot it as you get close).


> conversely, if you do have radio navigation aids, why wouldn't you just aim
> for them instead of relying on dead reckoning from some previous reference
> point?

I don't understand.

[Mxsmanic]

Stephen! writes:

<snip>

[[email protected]]

Stephen! > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>> You are flying a desk in a dark apartment.
>
> Correction... a desk in his mother's dark basement.

Nope, it is a hovel apartment in France where he eeks out a living giving
English lessons.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Flaps_50!]

On Jul 3, 2:47*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
> there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
> room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.
>

>
> It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
> mirror what my result in real life would be.

So, you have a night rating... LOL

Cheers

[Mxsmanic]

Flaps_50! writes:

> So, you have a night rating...

A night rating?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> On Jul 3, 2:47*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> > progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
> > there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
> > room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.
> >
>
> >
> > It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
> > mirror what my result in real life would be.
>
> So, you have a night rating... LOL
>
> Cheers

I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[george]

On Jul 8, 5:48*am, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *"Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > >. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> > > progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing, because
> > > there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because the
> > > room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing difficult.
>
> > > It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should accurately
> > > mirror what my result in real life would be.
>
> > So, you have a night rating... LOL
>
> > Cheers
>
> I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"

Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or three
up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or less)

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
george > wrote:

> On Jul 8, 5:48*am, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > *"Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 2:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > >. I didn't have a written plan, nor did I log my
> > > > progress. In general I eschew anything that might require writing,
> > > > because
> > > > there is no space on the table for writing things by hand, and because
> > > > the
> > > > room is generally dark except for the monitor, making writing
> > > > difficult.
> >
> > > > It works well for me. My failure or success in the sim should
> > > > accurately
> > > > mirror what my result in real life would be.
> >
> > > So, you have a night rating... LOL
> >
> > > Cheers
> >
> > I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"
>
> Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
> civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or three
> up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or less)

Where is "here?"

In the US, all we have to do is log three takeoffs and landings to a
full stop between the hours of one hour after civil sunset and one hour
before civil sunrise within the past 90 days, to carry passengers.

You can get current with or without an instructor aboard -- all you have
to do is log it.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Jim Logajan]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> george > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 5:48*am, Orval Fairbairn >
>> wrote:
>> > I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"
>>
>> Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
>> civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or
>> three up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or
>> less)
>
> Where is "here?"

Based on his IP address, he is in New Zealand.

[george]

On Jul 8, 11:33*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *george > wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 8, 5:48*am, Orval Fairbairn >
> >> wrote:
> >> > I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"
>
> >> Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
> >> civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or
> >> three up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or
> >> less)
>
> > Where is "here?"
>
> Based on his IP address, he is in New Zealand.

Yup :-)

[[email protected]]

Stephen! > wrote:
> wrote in :
>
>>>> You are flying a desk in a dark apartment.
>>>
>>> Correction... a desk in his mother's dark basement.
>>
>> Nope, it is a hovel apartment in France where he eeks out a living giving
>> English lessons.
>>
>
> Woosh!

Oh, I got the implication, but the reality is he is an adult loser.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> george > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 5:48 am, Orval Fairbairn >
>>> wrote:
>>> > I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"
>>>
>>> Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
>>> civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or
>>> three up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or
>>> less)
>>
>> Where is "here?"
>
> Based on his IP address, he is in New Zealand.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> george > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 5:48 am, Orval Fairbairn >
>>> wrote:
>>> > I live in the USA -- what's a "night rating?"
>>>
>>> Here it means that you are able to fly under VFR conditions after
>>> civil twilight and if you are a PPL allowed to carry a friend or
>>> three up to 10 nautical miles from the airfield of origin (more or
>>> less)
>>
>> Where is "here?"
>
> Based on his IP address, he is in New Zealand.

Oooo wrong button again....


What I was trying to say was that I had been about to ask:
"Where in Hell is that?"
and that, now, I know where Hell is...

Peter

[george]

On Jul 9, 1:34*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> What I was trying to say was that I had been about to ask:
> "Where in Hell is that?"
> and that, now, I know where Hell is...
>

Well I've lived in the US and Europe and I can tell you that there are
worse places than here.

But I think the rating question has been answered

[[email protected]]

On Jul 4, 10:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > He is sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
> > REAL PLANE.
>
> That depends on the situation. In many simulation scenarios, your experience
> in the simulation precisely mirrors what it would be in real life. In
> particular,

I repeat my question. What quality control is done in MSFS compared
to the real world?` Since you DO NOT fly a real plane, you DO NOT
KNOW if MSFS precisely mirrors the real world.

> this means that if you make a foolish mistake in the simulated
> flight and kill yourself, you would also be dead in real life ...

Ummm, I have crashed in MSFS and never killed myself DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Again I repeat myself as you have a serious comprehension problem

YOU ARE sadly mistaken as it does not accurately mirror results IN A
REAL PLANE.

How do I know this???? I fly in the real world AND use MSFS.

Can you. for the readership TELL US YOUR REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE????
Please entertain us.

[Peter Dohm]

"george" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 9, 1:34 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

>> What I was trying to say was that I had been about to ask:
>> "Where in Hell is that?"
>> and that, now, I know where Hell is...
>>
>
> Well I've lived in the US and Europe and I can tell you that there are
> worse places than here.
>
> But I think the rating question has been answered

Well, perhaps I overdid it for the sake of humor; but I am curoius:
What rating is required for night flying to be unrestricted, and how might
that rating complare to the PPL and Instrument ratings here in the USA?

Peter

[george]

On Jul 10, 11:18*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jul 9, 1:34 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >> *What I was trying to say was that I had been about to ask:
> >> *"Where in Hell is that?"
> >> *and that, now, I know where Hell is...
>
> > Well I've lived in the US and Europe and I can tell you that there are
> > worse places than here.
>
> > But I think the rating question has been answered
>
> Well, perhaps I overdid it for the sake of humor; but I am curoius:
> What rating is required for night flying to be unrestricted, and how might
> that rating complare to the PPL and Instrument ratings here in the USA?

Yup
Pretty much an Instrument Rating does it.
The night flying rating here is pretty restricted and I thought at the
time not worth doing..

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I repeat my question. What quality control is done in MSFS compared
> to the real world?`

Many of the developers were pilots and had flying experience, as I recall.
This is also true of many add-on developers.

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Peter > wrote:
> Well, perhaps I overdid it for the sake of humor; but I am curoius:
> What rating is required for night flying to be unrestricted, and how might
> that rating complare to the PPL and Instrument ratings here in the USA?

In the UK, the PPL doesn't automatically confer privileges to fly at night.
An extra 'Night Qualification' is required to do this. This basically
consists of five hours of flight, including a required number of solo
takeoffs and landings (5 I think) and a dual navigation flight. You can do
this during the training for the PPL, in which case the Night hours also
count towards the minimum hours for the PPL.

As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions on flying at night, apart
from the fact that you have to be flying IFR in VMC (i.e. not cloud). You're
also not allowed in controlled airspace without a Special VFR clearance.

The information on Wikipedia appears to be correct, but the official source
will be LASORS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_flight_in_the_UK

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 1:07*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > I repeat my question. *What quality control is done in MSFS compared
> > to the real world?`
>
> Many of the developers were pilots and had flying experience, as I recall..
> This is also true of many add-on developers.

Ohhh, so no uniform quality control is in place?

How do YOU know with your real world experiences whether MSFS is
comparable to the real world of flying with regards to quality?

I can answer this question, can you???

[Peter Dohm]

"Andy Hawkins" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Peter > wrote:
>> Well, perhaps I overdid it for the sake of humor; but I am curoius:
>> What rating is required for night flying to be unrestricted, and how
>> might
>> that rating complare to the PPL and Instrument ratings here in the USA?
>
> In the UK, the PPL doesn't automatically confer privileges to fly at
> night.
> An extra 'Night Qualification' is required to do this. This basically
> consists of five hours of flight, including a required number of solo
> takeoffs and landings (5 I think) and a dual navigation flight. You can do
> this during the training for the PPL, in which case the Night hours also
> count towards the minimum hours for the PPL.
>
> As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions on flying at night, apart
> from the fact that you have to be flying IFR in VMC (i.e. not cloud).
> You're
> also not allowed in controlled airspace without a Special VFR clearance.
>
> The information on Wikipedia appears to be correct, but the official
> source
> will be LASORS.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_flight_in_the_UK
>
> Andy

I took a quite look and it appears that the UK regulations on night flying
are similar to the US regulations in philosophy although not in detail.

The New Zealand regs look vaguely similar to the Republic of the Bahamas,
even though the relative area of land compared to water is far greater in
New Zealand. Essentially, my recollection is that night is IFR in the
Bahamas--although I have no recollection of whether night IFR requires
multiple engines.

Peter

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

And what do you call "controlled airspace" in the UK?
In the US this includes Class E, which outside of a few remote areas means all
airspace above 1200AGL quite generally. If your "controlled airspace" is as
widespread, are the night VFR clearances generally easily given, or is it hit
and miss?

Does the UK require you to file a flight plan for night VFR?



In article >,
says...
>
>
>Hi,
>
>In article >,
> Peter > wrote:
>> Well, perhaps I overdid it for the sake of humor; but I am curoius:
>> What rating is required for night flying to be unrestricted, and how might
>> that rating complare to the PPL and Instrument ratings here in the USA?
>
>In the UK, the PPL doesn't automatically confer privileges to fly at night.
>An extra 'Night Qualification' is required to do this. This basically
>consists of five hours of flight, including a required number of solo
>takeoffs and landings (5 I think) and a dual navigation flight. You can do
>this during the training for the PPL, in which case the Night hours also
>count towards the minimum hours for the PPL.
>
>As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions on flying at night, apart
>from the fact that you have to be flying IFR in VMC (i.e. not cloud). You're
>also not allowed in controlled airspace without a Special VFR clearance.
>
>The information on Wikipedia appears to be correct, but the official source
>will be LASORS.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_flight_in_the_UK
>
>Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> And what do you call "controlled airspace" in the UK?
> In the US this includes Class E, which outside of a few remote areas means all
> airspace above 1200AGL quite generally. If your "controlled airspace" is as
> widespread, are the night VFR clearances generally easily given, or is it hit
> and miss?

Anything except class G. Most of the airspace in the uk is either A, D or G.
I think there's the odd bit of class C around but not much.

I've got no personal knowledge of how easy it'd be to get a clearance as I
don't have the NQ (yet). However, there's plenty of Class G around so you
can get too and from anywhere really without too much of a diversion from a
direct flight path.

> Does the UK require you to file a flight plan for night VFR?

Can't say for certain (again, I don't have an NQ), but I'm fairly sure the
answer is 'No'.

Andy