Have you ever...

[Jay Honeck]

....refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
well, weird.

I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.

Never heard that voice before.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

Get your CFI. Do BFRs for a while. You'll get used to it ... quickly.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:X%16e.33363$NW5.4119@attbi_s02...
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.

[G. Sylvester]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

No but I would have if I know what I know now. At the time I
had solo'd and nothing else.

I was living in Germany at the time and a friend of a friend had
a pilots license who invited us to go flying near the Austrian
Alps and Salzburg. Some of the things he did that were stupid....


1. he fueled the plane himself, he never checked fuel for contaminatino
or water.

2. Didn't have a checklist but while lined up he found it. He didn't
use it much if at all.

3. His radio calls were attrocious.

4. I dont' think he ever concerned himself with Weight and balance
despite going to high altitudes with 3 males in a 172SP.

5. Landing in Rosenheim (IIRC), from the backseat it looked like
the treetops whizzed by maybe 30 feet below us so he was very low.

6. Going into Salzburg, he had no clue where we were despite having
a Garmin 430.

7. Landing in Salzburg which I'm guessing is a Class C airport,
he had full flaps in on downwind. I'm sure at least one plane had to
really extend the downwind for us.

8. He almost landed short of the numbers despite the
9000 foot runway.

9. He landed short and we then had to taxi a mile to the GA tie downs.

10. flying out of Salzburg, he had no idea on what the clearance meant
and didn't follow it.

11. Flying out of salzburg, Tower gave us a frequency change and he
couldn't remember it (ok, this happens to the best of us).

12. At night in the EU, you have to be on a VFR flight plan and get
the equivalent of VFR flight following. Approach (or whatever you
call it there) said, "Cessna D-xxxxx, ummm, if you are going to
Augsburg, umm, don't you want to turn 90 degrees to the left?"

13. He then proceeded to bust the MUC Class B.

14. The guy needed gased his passengers as he really needed to take
a shower more than once a week.

My friend has since flown with me in California and said I was a much
smoother, stable pilot. during the trip he said that they went up
again with 2 girls (so 4 total) up over the Alps at 13000+ feet
and somehow upon returning almost got into a midair when they were
approaching onto another airplane on final (I'm guessing). He said
they were damn scared at the time.

Looking back, I should have gotten out of the plane when he didn't check
the fuel. Live and learn and gladfully I'm still alive as this guy
is going to be a statistic some day.

Gerald Sylvester

[[email protected]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe?

Yes, I have declined.
Being a woman, it's hard to say if it was uneasiness about the man/woman
issue or about piloting skill, but something was definitely saying
"don't go", and he looked pretty shocked when I said, "No thanks, I
don't know how you fly!" It always amazes me how people just assume that
all pilots are *SO* desperate to be up in the air that they'll accept an
flight invite from ANYONE, regardless of how little they know about the
person, their piloting history, etc. Most self-respecting, reasonably
intelligent women won't get into a car with a man they just met and know
nothing about; why do men think asking a woman they just met to get into
an airplane with them is any different?

I have also declined a few invites from people I frequently fly and have
confidence with, when wind or other weather has been beyond what I feel
is safe.

[Toño]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

Absolutely !! And the guy was a good friend too. After a rather heated
discussion he ended up taking remedial training.

We don't speak much anymore...but he's still alive and, more
importantly, so am I ! ;-)


Toño

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:X%16e.33363$NW5.4119@attbi_s02...
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.
>
> I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
> voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
> Never heard that voice before.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I've never been invited up by a pilot I wouldn't fly with, but I have been
invited to ride along in airplanes I wouldn't fly in. Homebuilt helicopters
come to mind, as does an offer of a ride in a '47 Bonanza which was known to
have serious corrosion problems in the flight control skins as well as
wiring with crumbling insulation. I figured those things were the tips of
the iceberg with that Bonanza...

[Michelle P]

Jay,
It has happened to me a couple of times. I have not seen any of them in
a long time.
Having hours and confidence does help knowing I can take the controls if
necessary.
Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
>person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
>I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
>well, weird.
>
>I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
>voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
>Never heard that voice before.
>
>

[John Ousterhout]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.
>
> I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
> voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
> Never heard that voice before.

It's better to be on the ground looking up and wishing that you were
flying than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.

- J.O.-

[Jay Honeck]

> > ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe?
(With that
> > person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> No but I would have if I know what I know now. At the time I
> had solo'd and nothing else.

Ha! I hadn't even *thought* of that, but now that you mention it...

One of Mary's uncles took us flying in a rental Cessna back in the
early 80s. None of us were aware that he had his pilot's license (a
point that should have seemed odd to me at the time...), but we were
thrilled to go flying with him.

Well, more accurately, *I* was thrilled to go flying. Mary, at the
time, was ambivalent toward flying.

We took off and had a very enjoyable flight over central Wisconsin.
The flight orginated from a small, uncontrolled airport, so there was
no traffic or tower to deal with -- but in retrospect I don't remember
him using the radio at all. And, with 20/20 hindsight, his approach
speeds were very fast, and he floated forever on landing. We knew
nothing (this was actually my first flight in a small plane), but I was
ecstatic to be airborne.

Only much later, when I began flight training, did I casually do some
checking on him, just to see what his ratings were. Imagine my
surprise when I discovered he wasn't listed as a pilot at all!

This guy was always the "wild uncle" -- motorcycling across Europe,
traveling the world with a back pack and a smile, never having a pot to
pee in but living extravagantly -- and I suppose he took a few flight
lessons and decided that he already knew what he needed to know...

I shudder to think about it now...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

My experience was actually a combination of factors.

- The aircraft was a high-performance home-built (not built by the
current owner)
- The pilot had recently purchased the aircraft
- The pilot has an aggressive, somewhat unpredictable personality
- I'd flown with this pilot before, and was taken aback at the way they
skated on radio and standard pattern procedures.
- The weather was predicted to be marginal along the route of flight

For the first time, ever, I felt better staying on the ground.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With
> that person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

Oh, yeah.

An acquaintence of mine owns a twin. His idea of recurrent ME training
is to get a BFR from a good ol' boy CFI buddy who will sign his book
after a sight-seeing tour followed by a couple of beers.

Insurance? That's for suckers.

Maintenance? Hell, it flies, doesn't it? He's got another good ol' boy
who does his annuals.

I'm convinced that if he lost these good ol' boy connections, he'd
simply stop bothering with the paperwork and keep on flying. I can kind
of understand his attitude--he's pushing 70 and single--but no way I'd
fly with him.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Alan]

Absolutely! Actually a friend of mine. He commuted in his plane every
day and would "brag" to me about how it was so rote that he didn't
feel the need to preflight each time. He then related the "funny"
story about how one morning he took off and just as he reached pattern
altitude the engine began to sputter. He realized that he hadn't put
fuel in for a while and probably didn't have any fuel left and
managed to turn it back to the airport to land. Also, since he had
been strapped for cash, he had not had an annual for a couple of
years. I told him that no way was I going to fly with him. He was
insulted and wouldn't acknowledge me after that. Just found out he
sold the airplane and I was relieved both for him and any potential
passengers.


On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:32:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
>person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
>I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
>well, weird.
>
>I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
>voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
>Never heard that voice before.

[Grumman-581]

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
> Only much later, when I began flight training, did I casually do some
> checking on him, just to see what his ratings were. Imagine my
> surprise when I discovered he wasn't listed as a pilot at all!

He learned from Darwin... One of the best (and most unforgiving)
instructors... Just remember, which came first, pilots or the FAA/CAA?

[jsmith]

There were many pilots trained during WWII who did not apply for
civilian pilot licenses who continued to fly as civilians following
their separation from service. My father was one of them. He had flown
single engine seaplanes up through multiengine piston transports, but
never bothered to get an FAA certificate.

> "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
>>Only much later, when I began flight training, did I casually do some
>>checking on him, just to see what his ratings were. Imagine my
>>surprise when I discovered he wasn't listed as a pilot at all!

Grumman-581 wrote:
> He learned from Darwin... One of the best (and most unforgiving)
> instructors... Just remember, which came first, pilots or the FAA/CAA?

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

A couple of times. It doesn't happen often 'cause remembering mommy's
advice I usually don't consider flights with strangers.

The last time I turned down a flight was when I was looking for an
airplane to buy. In that process one does encounter questionable
planes and pilots and they usually are paired with each other. So
when I politely refused one owner's eager offer of a flight it had as
much to do with the plane as the pilot.

The other time was years ago when I was in a flying club. There, you
get to know the club members and based on their behavior on the ground
you can extrapolate to their behavior in the air.

[Bob Fry]

1> and he looked pretty shocked when I said, "No thanks, I
1> don't know how you fly!"

2> After a rather heated
2> discussion he ended up taking remedial training.
2> We don't speak much anymore...

3> I told him that no way was I going to fly with him. He was
3> insulted and wouldn't acknowledge me after that.

Whoa! Aren't there other ways of getting out of a risky flight?? You
know, think back to your dating days..."oh, I can't go out with you
then, I'm cleaning out my cat's litter box that night..."

Or was it only me?

[Jimmy B.]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

Yes, I have refused to fly with people who I felt were unsafe. I've
also refused to fly as PIC with people who I felt were unsafe. Being
PIC does nothing for you if the other person grabs the yoke on short
final and you both wind up as a flaming ball of wreckage.


>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.
>
> I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
> voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
> Never heard that voice before.

[[email protected]]

>> and he looked pretty shocked when I said, "No thanks, I
>> don't know how you fly!"

Bob Fry > wrote:
> Whoa! Aren't there other ways of getting out of a risky flight?? You
> know, think back to your dating days..."oh, I can't go out with you
> then, I'm cleaning out my cat's litter box that night..."
>
> Or was it only me?

It would have been different if I kind of knew this guy or knew others
who know him. I'd only seen him at the airport once before ... he pulled
up in his car to talk with me (translation: interrupt) while I was
preflighting. I was courteous and stopped for a few minutes to talk,
even though I don't interrupt others when I see them preflighting,
especially people I don't even know. When he walked up the second time,
and just ASSUMED that because we'd talked once, I would go with him--
"SO, when are we going flying??"--I could have made a nicer-sounding
excuse, but my deliberate curt response hopefully conveyed that just
because we had one "good morning, nice day isn't it?" conversation
doesn't mean that I'm going to climb into an airplane with what is
still, when you think about putting your life in their hands, a TOTAL
STRANGER. Again, it's a no-brainer that you don't take *car* rides from
total strangers ... why are airplane rides any different?

[Fred G. Black]

Jay,

Good call. Reading your list, I'd say any any 2 of these would be more
than enough to justify not going along on the flight. I wouldn't have
gone either.

Regards,

Fred G. Black, PP-ASEL,G Sundowner C-FJQG @ CYOW
18 Perrin Ave Phone: (613) 823-6017
Nepean, ON, K2J 2Y4 Email:

Jay Honeck wrote:
> My experience was actually a combination of factors.
>
> - The aircraft was a high-performance home-built (not built by the
> current owner)
> - The pilot had recently purchased the aircraft
> - The pilot has an aggressive, somewhat unpredictable personality
> - I'd flown with this pilot before, and was taken aback at the way they
> skated on radio and standard pattern procedures.
> - The weather was predicted to be marginal along the route of flight
>
> For the first time, ever, I felt better staying on the ground.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[G. Sylvester]

Bob Fry wrote:
> The other time was years ago when I was in a flying club. There, you
> get to know the club members and based on their behavior on the ground
> you can extrapolate to their behavior in the air.

that's funny because on the ground (especially in rental cars ;-) ) I
have this reputation of being a lunatic....ok not that bad. ;-) I like
to push things but I know where the line is and stay well well clear of
going near it. For instance, when I ski, I like to go fast-ish and
don't mind jumping off of 8 foot cornices.
If I don't know where the line is, I don't even think about
going near it. I know my limitations. In the air though, I am
unbelievably conservative ever since day one. I do everything very
formerly, follow the rules, follow the standard procedures, don't
even go close to thinking I'm a test pilot. Well my friends know
this but others probably think I should be institutionalized.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to convince my brother (a neurologist)
and his wife (a psychiatrist) of this. :)

But you are correct, generally the crazy person on the ground
is the crazy person in the air.

Gerald

[G. Sylvester]

> Ha! I hadn't even *thought* of that, but now that you mention it...
>
> One of Mary's uncles took us flying....
> Only much later, when I began flight training, did I casually do some
> checking on him, just to see what his ratings were. Imagine my
> surprise when I discovered he wasn't listed as a pilot at all!

Wow. And your related to this guy. ;-) I'm never going in a plane
with you. And if you come out west please notify the FCC to put
up a NOTAM. :)

Your story sounds like some of the "accidents" on the NTSB website.
I put accident in quotes because any time a person without a license
goes flying and crashes it's no accident. That is expected as it
is almost intentional. Looking back I'm sure you shake your head.
I do it with this friend of a friend in Germany. He's a statistic
waiting to happen.

Gerald

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message

Yes, my first CFI-I.

He was a hot dog. I flew with him twice and then quit him.

A few weeks later he was trying to show someone how close to the threshold
he could put the wheels on landing. He came up a few feet short and badly
damaged the aircraft and his career, but fortunately no ones health.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> doesn't mean that I'm going to climb into an airplane with what is
> still, when you think about putting your life in their hands, a TOTAL
> STRANGER. Again, it's a no-brainer that you don't take *car* rides from
> total strangers ... why are airplane rides any different?

Be careful about your generalizations. In the scenario you describe, I see
no reason to accept a ride. But there are plenty of examples of passengers
who are total strangers to the pilot accepting rides, as are there examples
of taking car rides from total strangers, all in very reasonable, accepted
situations.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:X%16e.33363$NW5.4119@attbi_s02...
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.
>
> I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
> voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
> Never heard that voice before.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Yes, I will not fly with any private or non-professional commercial pilot
except in the right seat unless they have demonstrated TO ME that they are
competent. I may simply be paranoid.

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> Be careful about your generalizations. In the scenario you describe, I see
> no reason to accept a ride. But there are plenty of examples of passengers
> who are total strangers to the pilot accepting rides, as are there examples
> of taking car rides from total strangers, all in very reasonable, accepted
> situations.

I didn't make any generalizations. In the scenario described, I knew
*nothing* about this person, not even his name, and he was not an
acquaintance of anyone I knew ... just a man driving through the airport.

I don't know what examples there are of people taking car rides or plane
rides from total strangers--no one I know gets into a car with a person
they don't even know. I'm not talking about taxicab drivers, limo
drivers, courtesy rides from maintenance shops, charter pilots or CFIs
doing Discovery Flights...that's a completely different scenario where
the passenger has initiated the ride/flight as part of a service they
are paying for. I was talking about a total stranger assuming you would
have no qualms about hopping into an airplane with him.

[Jay Honeck]

> Wow. And your related to this guy. ;-)

Only by marriage!

> And if you come out west please notify the FCC to put
> up a NOTAM. :)

I know my radio procedures aren't perfect, but can they really put out
NOTAMs?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> I didn't make any generalizations.

I guess it was someone else who wrote: "it's a no-brainer that you don't
take *car* rides from total strangers". Sounds like a generalization to me.

> [...]
> I don't know what examples there are of people taking car rides or plane
> rides from total strangers--no one I know gets into a car with a person
> they don't even know.

One of the volunteer things I have done was to drive total strangers. They
didn't know me, I didn't know them.

Last I heard, EAA was still doing Young Eagles flights. Again, total
strangers.

And believe it or not, there are people who still hitch-hike. Some risk?
Sure. But flying with someone you know doesn't preclude risk either.

I would say the issue is only a "no-brainer" for someone without a brain.
Otherwise, there is some thinking involved. You have to weigh the various
aspects of the situation.

Pete

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> I guess it was someone else who wrote: "it's a no-brainer that you don't
> take *car* rides from total strangers". Sounds like a generalization to me.

Take one sentence out of context, and of course it sounds like a
generalization. In context, however, I was referring to situations like
the one described -- someone you don't know walks up to you and assumes
you're going flying together.

> One of the volunteer things I have done was to drive total strangers. They
> didn't know me, I didn't know them.

Did you just pick people at random on the street that you assumed needed
rides? or were you a volunteer with some sort of program that matched up
drivers with people needing rides? -- two very different things. In
fact, in some parts, a man offering rides to people at random,
especially ladies, may well prompt someone to call the police.

> Last I heard, EAA was still doing Young Eagles flights. Again, total
> strangers.

Again, that's a completely different situation that what I was
discussing. Young Eagle flights and the EAA are established programs.
Those participating, on both sides, may not know one another, but there
is at least an *implied* understanding of that program. That's one notch
up from being a "total" stranger and different than some stranger
offering you a ride at random.

> And believe it or not, there are people who still hitch-hike. Some risk?
> Sure. But flying with someone you know doesn't preclude risk either.

EXACTLY. That was the point!
In the scenario being discussed, I wasn't hitching an airplane ride.

> You have to weigh the various aspects of the situation.

Yes, and that was Jay's original question, if anyone has ever refused to
fly with someone.

[G. Sylvester]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>And if you come out west please notify the FCC to put
>>up a NOTAM. :)
> I know my radio procedures aren't perfect, but can they really put out
> NOTAMs?
> ;-)


Oh I meant a NOTAM on the newsgroup and not a FSS NOTAM. :)

Gerald

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> Take one sentence out of context, and of course it sounds like a
> generalization. In context, however, I was referring to situations like
> the one described

The context was about airplanes. Your comment specified cars. How can you
possibly claim that your comment was NOT a generalization. You specifically
generalized from airplanes to cars, and from a specific stranger to all
strangers generally.

> [...] That's one notch
> up from being a "total" stranger and different than some stranger
> offering you a ride at random.

Thus the problem with generalizations. When you fail to qualify your
statement, it becomes inaccurate. Just because someone else is vouching for
a person, that does not keep them from being a total stranger. It simply
makes them a different kind of total stranger.

Thank you for illustrating exactly the problem with generalizations I was
talking about.

>> And believe it or not, there are people who still hitch-hike. Some risk?
>> Sure. But flying with someone you know doesn't preclude risk either.
>
> EXACTLY. That was the point!
> In the scenario being discussed, I wasn't hitching an airplane ride.

Because you refused, true. But it's reasonably analagous to hitch-hiking,
which is not a uniformly dangerous practice.

> Yes, and that was Jay's original question, if anyone has ever refused to
> fly with someone.

Actually, his question was "Have you ever refused to fly with someone you
felt was not entirely safe?" That's a very different question from "have
you ever refused to fly with someone you did not know to be entirely safe?"

The person you described was not someone you had any reason to believe "was
not entirely safe." The only reason for declining the ride was your lack of
knowledge about him, not some specific knowledge about him.

Pete

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> This guy was always the "wild uncle" -- motorcycling across Europe,
> traveling the world with a back pack and a smile, never having a pot to
> pee in but living extravagantly -- and I suppose he took a few flight
> lessons and decided that he already knew what he needed to know...
>
> I shudder to think about it now...

I wonder how many people are flying without ever having their ticket, or
have been flying for years since they were legal. I hear of a guy around my
area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > This guy was always the "wild uncle" -- motorcycling across Europe,
> > traveling the world with a back pack and a smile, never having a pot to
> > pee in but living extravagantly -- and I suppose he took a few flight
> > lessons and decided that he already knew what he needed to know...
> >
> > I shudder to think about it now...
>
> I wonder how many people are flying without ever having their ticket, or
> have been flying for years since they were legal. I hear of a guy around
my
> area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
> --
> Jim in NC

The proportion is probably not much different than the number of people that
drive without a drivers license. A larger number than most would expect.
The chances of getting caught are minimal.

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote

> Yes, I will not fly with any private or non-professional commercial pilot
> except in the right seat unless they have demonstrated TO ME that they are
> competent. I may simply be paranoid.

So, how do you learn if they are competent, if you don't fly with them?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> Thus the problem with generalizations. When you fail to qualify your
> statement, it becomes inaccurate.

This seems a little silly to me ... what you claim was my
"generalization" did not make my comment "inaccurate". It was part of a
discussion about differing attitudes about offering and accepting
airplane and car rides from strangers. No accurate or inaccurate about
it, just added a comment to the topic; but feel free to dissect the
words and phrases and label each if you feel that need.

> Just because someone else is vouching for a person, that
> does not keep them from being a total stranger. It simply
> makes them a different kind of total stranger.

Agreed. But in the scenario I was talking about, no one had vouched for
anyone. The minute you begin to learn things about someone, they become
less of a stranger, and what you've learned influences decisions about
things like accepting invites for flights or rides.

Pilots and passengers at major airlines are usually total strangers too;
however, their business is offering rides for money, you are in need of
the ride, and even though you don't know the pilots or the mechanics,
there is *some* implied assurance that these people had certain
qualifications for their jobs, and the pilots now have a little more
implied assurance that passengers aren't going to be dangerous. Even
with all that, there's still some risk. But that's still different than
going to an airport and approaching any stranger standing next to any
airplane to take you to your destination...or to hop into your airplane
with you.

> Thank you for illustrating exactly the problem with generalizations I was
> talking about.

I am aware of the problem with generalizations, but I'm not sure what
your problem is with my comment. You're free to think it's fine to
accept plane rides from some random person on the field or to expect
that any stranger you offer a ride to will assume you're a competent
pilot if that's your opinion.

> But it's reasonably analagous to hitch-hiking,
> which is not a uniformly dangerous practice.

Maybe you need to take some of your own advice about generalizations. I
don't know where you live, but many would disagree that hitch-hiking "is
not a uniformly dangerous practice." Quite the opposite.

> The person you described was not someone you had
> any reason to believe "was not entirely safe." The only
> reason for declining the ride was your lack of knowledge
> about him, not some specific knowledge about him.

Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to
believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying
to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and
his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he
"was not entirely safe." That may be an inaccurate assumption, maybe
he's one terrific pilot; but the feeling I had about his attitude and
arrogance was real enough to be a red flag *to me* about flying with him
.... which WAS Jay's question.

[Grumman-581]

"Jimmy B." wrote in message
nk.net...
> Yes, I have refused to fly with people who I felt were unsafe. I've
> also refused to fly as PIC with people who I felt were unsafe. Being
> PIC does nothing for you if the other person grabs the yoke on short
> final and you both wind up as a flaming ball of wreckage.

Had that happen to me once... Before the flight, I had instructed him that
he was under no circumstances to touch the controls... He freaked out during
a bank, grabbed the yoke and his feet started pumping the rudder pedals... I
put a right elbow with a significant amount of force into his upper torso
area and he let go... If he hadn't, the next elbow was going to be going
into his face... I won't fly with him again...

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I am aware of the problem with generalizations, but I'm not sure what
> your problem is with my comment.

Your comment was a generalization. I simply said one should be careful
about making generalizations, such as the one you made. Your blanket
statement is not correct 100% of the time (a common problem with
generalizations).

> [...]
> Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to
> believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying
> to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and
> his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he
> "was not entirely safe."

You know all that about the guy, and yet you call him a total stranger? At
the same time, you equivocate about what constitutes a total stranger with
respect to my examples?

You are funny. Thanks for the giggle.

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
...
> I don't know what examples there are of people taking car rides or plane
> rides from total strangers--no one I know gets into a car with a person
> they don't even know.

If my car was broke down on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere
and someone offered me a ride, I wouldn't have a problem with it... Of
course, I always carry a .45 with me so that might affect my judgement
somewhat...

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
...
> Did you just pick people at random on the street that you assumed needed
> rides?

In Houston, it is fairly common for people to drive by the Park-and-Ride
locations and offer rides to people waiting on the bus so that they can take
the HOV lane instead of being stuck in one of the12 lane parking lots that
we call "expressways"...

[[email protected]]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
>Your blanket statement is not correct 100% of the time
>(a common problem with generalizations).

But that didn't keep you from making one.

> > Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to
> > believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying
> > to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and
> > his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he
> > "was not entirely safe."

> You know all that about the guy, and yet you call him a total stranger?

> You are funny. Thanks for the giggle.

Yes, he was/is a total stranger. I never saw the guy before. After a few
minutes of conversation, only thing I *knew* was that in my opinion, he
was an arrogant blowhard. As another poster said, some traits on the
ground may or may not also present in the cockpit. Reasons for "not
feeling a person is entirely safe" for some of us DO include a person's
attitude, regardless of how many hours he says he has. Think I'm funny
and giggle if you want ... I'm not THAT desperate to fly.

And that *was* Jay's question.

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> > Did you just pick people at random on the street that you assumed needed
> > rides?

"Grumman-581" > wrote:
> In Houston, it is fairly common for people to drive by the
> Park-and-Ride locations and offer rides to people waiting
> on the bus so that they can take the HOV lane instead of
> being stuck in one of the 12 lane parking lots that
> we call "expressways"...

I know, and *most* of those rides end up safely. Still, would you
suggest that practice--offering/accepting rides to/from a person they've
never seen before at the bus stop--to your son/daughter/spouse?

Everyone has their own risk tolerance level. I was merely pointing out
what I perceive as a double standard: despite what many of us accept
about the dangers of getting into a car with a stranger, some don't seem
to think twice about getting into an airplane with one, pilot or
passenger. To clarify, I was talking specifically about a random person
on the field, not about going to a flight school and signing up for a
Discovery Flight or to events where rides are being offered.

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
...
> I know, and *most* of those rides end up safely. Still, would you
> suggest that practice--offering/accepting rides to/from a person they've
> never seen before at the bus stop--to your son/daughter/spouse?

When Grace worked downtown and took the bus via the Park-and-Ride, she would
accept rides from such people... I guess this is not just from *anyone*
since these people tend to be what might be considered upwardly mobile
professionals... All in all, I don't think that many of the problem
individuals that you are so concerned about are driving Mercedes, Volvos,
Saabs, and such while wearing suits...

[Bob Fry]

"Morgans" > writes:

> I hear of a guy around my
> area who has not had a medical for 15 years.

Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
is meaningless and should be eliminated.

[[email protected]]

"Grumman-581" wrote:
> All in all, I don't think that many of the problem
> individuals that you are so concerned about are
> driving Mercedes, Volvos, Saabs, and such while
> wearing suits...

I agree...although I wouldn't want my daughter assuming some guy
offering her a ride was okay just because he was driving a nice car and
wearing a suit. Again, it's all about assumptions and whether or not
you're willing to put your life on the line based on appearances.
Expensive cars and suits don't necessarily make someone a competent
driver, or preclude them from being a defendant.

Aside from guessing that a person has a bigger checkbook or a generous
friend, I don't assume he's a better/safer pilot or more upstanding
person if a guy is flying a Bonanza than I do if he's flying a SuperCub.
I'd want to know a little more before agreeing to go fly with either.
JMO.

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
> > Yes, I will not fly with any private or non-professional commercial
pilot
> > except in the right seat unless they have demonstrated TO ME that they
are
> > competent. I may simply be paranoid.
>
> So, how do you learn if they are competent, if you don't fly with them?

Their karma?

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:K8t6e.25718$Vx1.5209@attbi_s01...
> When Grace worked downtown and took the bus via the Park-and-Ride, she
would
> accept rides from such people... I guess this is not just from *anyone*
> since these people tend to be what might be considered upwardly mobile
> professionals... All in all, I don't think that many of the problem
> individuals that you are so concerned about are driving Mercedes, Volvos,
> Saabs, and such while wearing suits...
>
Um...remember Ted Bundy?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
>> Yes, I will not fly with any private or non-professional commercial
>> pilot
>> except in the right seat unless they have demonstrated TO ME that they
>> are
>> competent. I may simply be paranoid.
>
> So, how do you learn if they are competent, if you don't fly with them?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

As I said, I have to be in the right seat (with a full set of controls).

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Grumman-581" > wrote:
> > When Grace worked downtown and took the bus via the Park-and-Ride,
> > she would
> > accept rides from such people... I guess this is not just from *anyone*
> > since these people tend to be what might be considered upwardly mobile
> > professionals... All in all, I don't think that many of the problem
> > individuals that you are so concerned about are driving Mercedes, Volvos,
> > Saabs, and such while wearing suits...

> Um...remember Ted Bundy?

Yes, and I was thinking that during this discussion, too ... although he
may have been a well-dressed, "upwardly mobile professional", he drove a
VW bug. Still, he had a lot of people fooled by his "professional"
outward appearance.

[Ross Richardson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

>
>Yes, I will not fly with any private or non-professional commercial pilot
>except in the right seat unless they have demonstrated TO ME that they are
>competent. I may simply be paranoid.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>
>
>
>
So how do you determine if they are competent?

--
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP

[Jeff Shirton]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...

>> I hear of a guy around my
>> area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
>
> Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class
> for hobby flying) is meaningless and should be eliminated.

I heard of a guy flying around who didn't even have a license.
I guess that "simply shows" that a pilot's license
"is meaningless and should be eliminated".

</Sarcasm/OFF>

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Keep thy airspeed up, lest the earth come from below
and smite thee. - William Kershner
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

[Bob Fry]

"Jeff Shirton" > writes:

> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I hear of a guy around my
> >> area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
> >
> > Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class
> > for hobby flying) is meaningless and should be eliminated.
>
> I heard of a guy flying around who didn't even have a license.
> I guess that "simply shows" that a pilot's license
> "is meaningless and should be eliminated".

No, but it shows much of the training for a PP-ASEL is
meaningless...and can be reduced. Hence the Sport license.

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> Um...remember Ted Bundy?

Yeah... Don't think that any of his victims were armed, were they? Grace
also has a CHL... It's not like she's going to leave her handgun in her car,
right?

[Grumman-581]

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
> So how do you determine if they are competent?

Fly with 'em? <snicker>

Hell, if I think that I can fly their aircraft, they're probably competent
enough for me... Assuming that I saw them land and it was acceptable...

[Scott Migaldi]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
> I had it happen earlier this year, for the first time, ever, and it felt,
> well, weird.
>
> I think I did the right thing, but it's hard to say. That funny little
> voice in my head just kept saying "stay on the ground..." -- so I did.
>
> Never heard that voice before.

Yes I have and he was a CFI, I ended up telling to get out of the
airplane and that I would not fly with him. I also reported him to his CP.

Scott

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> No, but it shows much of the training for a PP-ASEL is
> meaningless.
>

You might wanna add "most of the time". Which doesn't mean one can omit
it completely - quite the contrary. Hence the serious limitations on
what you can do with a Sport license.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes I have and he was a CFI, I ended up telling to get out of the airplane
> and that I would not fly with him. I also reported him to his CP.

Whoa. What did he do?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> No, but it shows much of the training for a PP-ASEL is
>> meaningless.
>>
>
> You might wanna add "most of the time". Which doesn't mean one can omit
> it completely - quite the contrary. Hence the serious limitations on
> what you can do with a Sport license.

This could be the start of an interesting thread.

What would YOU eliminate from the Private Pilot training curriculum?

Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid, pointless
things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever used
again...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > "Grumman-581" > wrote:
> > > When Grace worked downtown and took the bus via the Park-and-Ride,
> > > she would
> > > accept rides from such people... I guess this is not just from
*anyone*
> > > since these people tend to be what might be considered upwardly mobile
> > > professionals... All in all, I don't think that many of the problem
> > > individuals that you are so concerned about are driving Mercedes,
Volvos,
> > > Saabs, and such while wearing suits...
>
> > Um...remember Ted Bundy?
>
> Yes, and I was thinking that during this discussion, too ... although he
> may have been a well-dressed, "upwardly mobile professional", he drove a
> VW bug.

He didn't have the car hotwiring skills that a couple other serial killers
did.

> Still, he had a lot of people fooled by his "professional"
> outward appearance.

And he was often referred to as having a rather "charming" personality.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ZNO6e.8341$Bb3.4369@attbi_s22...
> >> No, but it shows much of the training for a PP-ASEL is
> >> meaningless.
> >>
> >
> > You might wanna add "most of the time". Which doesn't mean one can omit
> > it completely - quite the contrary. Hence the serious limitations on
> > what you can do with a Sport license.
>
> This could be the start of an interesting thread.
>
> What would YOU eliminate from the Private Pilot training curriculum?
>
> Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid, pointless
> things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever used
> again...

Are you talking about flight training, or High School? :~>

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:p_D6e.6385$xL4.4698@attbi_s72...
> "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> > Um...remember Ted Bundy?
>
> Yeah... Don't think that any of his victims were armed, were they?

Didn't he kill some of his victims on a college campus? Well, a college
campus is a "Gun Free Zone".

> Grace
> also has a CHL... It's not like she's going to leave her handgun in her
car,
> right?

Quite, but we need a "Relevancy Check" right about now!

[George Patterson]

Bob Fry wrote:
> "Morgans" > writes:
>
>
>>I hear of a guy around my
>>area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
>
>
> Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
> is meaningless and should be eliminated.

Maybe for that one guy.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Ron McKinnon]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:SlT6e.6554$ff4.3707@trndny08...
> Bob Fry wrote:
>> "Morgans" > writes:
>>
>>>I hear of a guy around my
>>>area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
>>
>> Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
>> is meaningless and should be eliminated.
>
> Maybe for that one guy.

This 'shows' nothing, at all about whether or not "a medical ... is
meaningless and should be eliminated", 3rd Class or otherwise.
Not for that one guy, nor for any other. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

[Newps]

There's a lot of people flying out there without medicals. Annuals too.

Ron McKinnon wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:SlT6e.6554$ff4.3707@trndny08...
>
>>Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>>>"Morgans" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I hear of a guy around my
>>>>area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
>>>
>>>Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
>>>is meaningless and should be eliminated.
>>
>>Maybe for that one guy.
>
>
> This 'shows' nothing, at all about whether or not "a medical ... is
> meaningless and should be eliminated", 3rd Class or otherwise.
> Not for that one guy, nor for any other. Nothing. Nada. Zero.
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote in message
news:QsU6e.983868$6l.85862@pd7tw2no...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:SlT6e.6554$ff4.3707@trndny08...
> > Bob Fry wrote:
> >> "Morgans" > writes:
> >>
> >>>I hear of a guy around my
> >>>area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
> >>
> >> Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
> >> is meaningless and should be eliminated.
> >
> > Maybe for that one guy.
>
> This 'shows' nothing, at all about whether or not "a medical ... is
> meaningless and should be eliminated", 3rd Class or otherwise.
> Not for that one guy, nor for any other. Nothing. Nada. Zero.
>
Okay, Rod, get off the fence and tell us what you REALLY think!!!

[Matt Barrow]

Without licenses, without prescribed ratings...

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> There's a lot of people flying out there without medicals. Annuals too.
>
> Ron McKinnon wrote:
> > "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> > news:SlT6e.6554$ff4.3707@trndny08...
> >
> >>Bob Fry wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Morgans" > writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I hear of a guy around my
> >>>>area who has not had a medical for 15 years.
> >>>
> >>>Which simply shows that a medical (esp. a 3rd class for hobby flying)
> >>>is meaningless and should be eliminated.
> >>
> >>Maybe for that one guy.
> >
> >
> > This 'shows' nothing, at all about whether or not "a medical ... is
> > meaningless and should be eliminated", 3rd Class or otherwise.
> > Not for that one guy, nor for any other. Nothing. Nada. Zero.
> >
> >
> >

[John Gaquin]

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
>
> .......any time a person without a license
> goes flying and crashes it's no accident. That is expected as it
> is almost intentional.

Yes. A person who flies without benefit of a Pilot Certificate is by
definition unsafe. The rules say so. And all our acquaintances who
dutifully carry their carefully laminated certificates are, of course, good
and safe pilots because their certificates are on their persons.

<sigh.....>

[Jimmy B.]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Jimmy B." wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Yes, I have refused to fly with people who I felt were unsafe. I've
>>also refused to fly as PIC with people who I felt were unsafe. Being
>>PIC does nothing for you if the other person grabs the yoke on short
>>final and you both wind up as a flaming ball of wreckage.
>
>
> Had that happen to me once... Before the flight, I had instructed him that
> he was under no circumstances to touch the controls... He freaked out during
> a bank, grabbed the yoke and his feet started pumping the rudder pedals... I
> put a right elbow with a significant amount of force into his upper torso
> area and he let go... If he hadn't, the next elbow was going to be going
> into his face... I won't fly with him again...

Yep, that sounds a lot like my experience. Only, with me, I did a
karate chop right to his Adam's apple. His gag reflex made him let go.


>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Michelle P" wrote in message > Having hours and confidence does help
>knowing I can take the controls if necessary.

What if the PIC scoffs at your concerns and does not relinquish the controls
to you?

D.

[George Patterson]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Michelle P" wrote in message > Having hours and confidence does help
>>knowing I can take the controls if necessary.
>
>
> What if the PIC scoffs at your concerns and does not relinquish the controls
> to you?

She said "knowing I can *take* the controls." She didn't say anything about the
other guy giving them up willingly. (It's amazing what a #2 knitting needle can
do.) :-)

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> Didn't he kill some of his victims on a college campus? Well, a college
> campus is a "Gun Free Zone".

Depends upon the state... In Texas, it is the *buildings*, not the public
areas outside the buildings... Even so, I consider those 'laws' just another
of the anti-2nd-Amendment restrictions that the leftists have inflicted upon
us over the years... What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they not
understand?

> Quite, but we need a "Relevancy Check" right about now!

Not really... I'm always armed when I fly -- it's relevant...

[Grumman-581]

"Jimmy B." wrote in message
ink.net...
> Yep, that sounds a lot like my experience. Only, with me, I did a
> karate chop right to his Adam's apple. His gag reflex made him let go.

You must have either been in a larger plane or have shorter arms... <grin>

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
> >
> > .......any time a person without a license
> > goes flying and crashes it's no accident. That is expected as it
> > is almost intentional.
>
> Yes. A person who flies without benefit of a Pilot Certificate is by
> definition unsafe. The rules say so.

Yes, the person who disregards the rules of licensing will, naturally,
dutifully obey the other rules of flying.

>And all our acquaintances who
> dutifully carry their carefully laminated certificates are, of course,
good
> and safe pilots because their certificates are on their persons.

The operative word here is "intent".

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:i_77e.14764$8Z6.12785@attbi_s21...
> "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> > Didn't he kill some of his victims on a college campus? Well, a college
> > campus is a "Gun Free Zone".
>
> Depends upon the state... In Texas, it is the *buildings*, not the public
> areas outside the buildings...

The zones are part of FEDERAL law.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid, pointless
>> things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever
>> used
>> again...
>
> Are you talking about flight training, or High School? :~>

Well, flight training, in this thread.

I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the VOR,
and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus IFR
ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable alphabet-soup
airspace designations.

But I guess that's a different topic...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> news:i_77e.14764$8Z6.12785@attbi_s21...
>> "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
>> > Didn't he kill some of his victims on a college campus? Well, a college
>> > campus is a "Gun Free Zone".
>>
>> Depends upon the state... In Texas, it is the *buildings*, not the public
>> areas outside the buildings...
>
> The zones are part of FEDERAL law.
>
>
I beleive that the Federal Gun Free Zones were found unconstitutional.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22...
>>> Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid,
>>> pointless
>>> things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever
>>> used
>>> again...
>>
>> Are you talking about flight training, or High School? :~>
>
> Well, flight training, in this thread.
>
> I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
> VOR, and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the
> ADF. (Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)
>
> And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
> altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>
> And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
> IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
> alphabet-soup airspace designations.
>
> But I guess that's a different topic...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

and delete the FAA/NTSB accident/incedent reporting rules (just know where
to look them up after you crash). Consolidate the three definitions of
"night" to one (perhaps "when it is dark")

Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22...
> [...]
> I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
> VOR, and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the
> ADF. (Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)
>
> And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
> altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>
> And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
> IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
> alphabet-soup airspace designations.

Perhaps you would prefer that all pilot certificates be issued with
restrictions stipulating precisely what it is the pilot was actually taught?
Then, every time you want to add some sort of facet to your flying
repertoire, you would have to go through (at a minimum) specific flight
training and a logbook endorsement?

The required training is a compromise. Once certificated, a pilot is
permitted to engage in a wide variety of flying. Just because YOU don't
personally avail yourself of those privileges, that doesn't mean you don't
have them, nor does it mean it was a waste of time for you to obtain them.
It would be impractical to try to tailor each and every pilot certificate
specifically to the needs of that pilot.

By the way, it's unclear what you mean by "the ridiculous VFR versus IFR
ceiling/visibility rules". There are no minimum ceiling or visibility rules
for IFR flight. That's the whole point of IFR. As far as the
"alphabet-soup airspace designations", frankly it's a heck of a lot more
organized than the old named airspace designations were, and it's gone a
long way to helping international flight become more uniform (in spite of
the many exceptions that still exist, of course).

Pete

[John Galban]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
> altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>
If you fly in the mountains in the summer time, knowing the
difference and being able to compute the D.A. can mean the difference
between flying and eating a tree sandwich. Given some of the antics
I've seen from newbie mountain pilots over the years, I was under the
impression that they'd already dropped this from the curriculum.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jay Honeck]

>> And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
>> altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>>
> If you fly in the mountains in the summer time, knowing the
> difference and being able to compute the D.A. can mean the difference
> between flying and eating a tree sandwich. Given some of the antics
> I've seen from newbie mountain pilots over the years, I was under the
> impression that they'd already dropped this from the curriculum.

It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
the POH.

Perhaps it is on newer aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps you would prefer that all pilot certificates be issued with
> restrictions stipulating precisely what it is the pilot was actually
> taught?

No, but I do wish more emphasis was put on learning to fly rather than on
hitting new pilots with dumb "gotcha" questions that require mass
memorization to answer.

As you can tell, most of my gripes are with the written exam. I scored in
the upper 90s (admittedly over 10 years ago now) but only because I almost
literally memorized the test before taking it.

If we're trying to weed people out, that's an excellent method. If we're
trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.

The Recreational Pilot was a feeble, failed attempt at this. We'll see how
the "Sport Pilot" fares.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CSe7e.15587$8Z6.12366@attbi_s21...
>> Perhaps you would prefer that all pilot certificates be issued with
>> restrictions stipulating precisely what it is the pilot was actually
>> taught?
>
> No, but I do wish more emphasis was put on learning to fly rather than on
> hitting new pilots with dumb "gotcha" questions that require mass
> memorization to answer.

I guess I just don't see what you mean. Part of learning to fly is
accumulating important *factual* knowledge (as opposed to hand-eye
coordination, muscle memory type stuff). Operating the aircraft is just one
element of flight.

As far as memorization goes, I guess that depends on your learning style. I
try to avoid rote learning as much as possible. While there are some things
in aviation that simply cannot be learned any other way, much can be.

Even things like nav light positions (wingtip light on the other aircraft
tells you whether you can "go" or not) or cruising altitude (it would make
sense for "eastbound" flights to fly on "even" altitudes, so of course the
FAA doesn't do it that way) can be reduced to some sort of logical, non-rote
approach. Many other things, such as temperature effects on indicated vs
true altitude for example, have real underlying learnable reasons for their
existence, and can be derived "on the spot" if you go past the rote
learning.

IMHO, if you feel that most of your flying education involved rote learning,
you did not have very good instructors.

> As you can tell, most of my gripes are with the written exam. I scored in
> the upper 90s (admittedly over 10 years ago now) but only because I almost
> literally memorized the test before taking it.

Don't confuse the written exam with learning. :) As you say, the exam is
as much about filtering the pilot population as it is about encouraging any
specific knowledge. After all, when you can just read all of the questions
*and answers* ahead of time, it makes the test a lot easier.

That said, the problem there is with the testing methodology, not the facts
being tested. Because of the "pick randomly from a large database" method,
it's true that almost every test winds up having one or two useless
questions. But in the big picture, most of the information is actually
useful. There's a reason that the written is just one small part of the
overall certification process, but that reason has to do with the method,
not the content.

> If we're trying to weed people out, that's an excellent method. If we're
> trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
> need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.
>
> The Recreational Pilot was a feeble, failed attempt at this. We'll see
> how the "Sport Pilot" fares.

We'll see. I have high hopes, and given that the Sport Pilot certificate
does dramatically reduce the training time and costs (something the
Recreational didn't really achieve), I think it has a good chance. But note
that the pilot who gets a Sport Pilot certificate has some pretty
significant limitations regarding what they are permitted to do. And I
think those limitations are well-justified.

The Sport Pilot certificate is, in fact, an example of the tiered
certification I was talking about. My example was the extreme, taken to the
absurd limits. But you can see how we probably wouldn't want many more
tiers than what we've got now that the Sport Pilot certificate is a reality.
Even adding the Sport Pilot has noticeably complicated the regulations and
certification process. I think the benefit will be greater than the cost,
but that wouldn't be true if we did that exercise many more times. :)

Pete

[Grumman-581]

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message ...
> The zones are part of FEDERAL law.

I know that with a CHL, I can carry on the school grounds in Texas, just not
in any of the buildings...

[Grumman-581]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message news:6fa7e.38$nh1.5@okepread03...
> I beleive that the Federal Gun Free Zones were found unconstitutional.

As well as should the other 1000+ gun laws that came after "SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED"...

[Hilton]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Consolidate the three definitions of
> "night" to one (perhaps "when it is dark")

Consolidating the twilight with the one-hour would be OK, but I don't think
there's any (safe and logical) way to combine the lights (sunrise, sunset)
and one-hour definitions.

Hilton

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Yes, the person who disregards the rules of licensing will, naturally,
> dutifully obey the other rules of flying.
>

Nah, only those that make _sense_, not the superflous (sp?) guvnmint
stuff - see?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
> 'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
> aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
> the POH.
>

This post after you so strongly advocate AGAINST rote learning? You don't make
sense!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
> altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>

Every year, pilots get hurt by disregarding DA effects on their flying.
And you want to do away with at least trying to educate them on it?

And what's wrong with having airspace numbered A thru G instead of
ridiculous acronyms?

As you can easily see, your view on what makes sense and what doesn't
is extremely personal...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:54:29 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
>'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
>aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
>the POH.

There in fact IS such a chart. It's actually one of those adjustable
cardboard devices that allows you to dial in various parameters such
as temperature, altitude, wind, direction of wind, runway surface
type, whether it's sloped up or down and by how much, what type of
airplane etc. etc.

Dial all that stuff in and the calculator reads out the necessary
runway length. Compare that to the runway you are about to use.

I found mine at Sporty's Pilot Shop. Saw it recommended in the "Hold
on Harvey (or whatever the name was) FAA video about density altitude.

There were three very sobering video's in the VCR. The above
mentioned one was poor quality because the Video cam wasn't found for
several years or so in the wreck. It was shot from a Cessna L-19, or
the civilian version of it and there were two guys in it flying up a
mountain range that kept getting higher and higher. They got
themselves trapped heading into a mountain canyon that rose faster
than they could climb and attempted to turn around. The pilots last
words were "Hang on Harvey (or whatever the passengers name was)" and
you see the ground go upside down. You can hear the stall warning
horn going off as the pilot attempts the turn (to the right). He
drops the nose, but then has to pull it back up right away because the
ground is so close. The stall warning horn goes off again and the
ground goes upside down.

In the second accident you are looking at a scene in a really rugged
canyon from the hikers viewpoint. They hear the sound of an airplane
and a Cessna goes by at about their eye level. You hear them
discussing it and then the airplane noises come back and you see the
airplane coming back at them, but below the rim of the canyon. It
smashes right into it below them.

The third accident was the best quality video because it was shot at
an airshow. It looked like it was a Beech T-34 or something very
similar. It was at a high altitude runway and it was apparently very
hot. The pilot goes up for a loop and as he's rounding out for the
pull out, he runs out of air.

All of these accidents were due to the pilots not understanding the
affect of density altitude on the performance of their airplane, and
not allowing for it.

In addition to the crash video's there is a comprehensive discussion
by a very heavy set FAA crash investigator who had an ego to match.
He was impressively overbearing and caustic.

Most density altitude misshaps occur in the high plains or mountain
area's of the west, but not all of them.

There was a density altitude related accident here at a local turf
runway airport in Vermont a number of years ago. A pilot (think he
was flying a Cherokee) was visiting and decided to take off with three
passengers during the heat of the day (it was high summer). Several
of the local pilots got in his face and aggressively spoke to him
about the situation pointing out how hot it was and that with the full
load what effect that would have on his marginal performance and tried
to persuade him to wait.

He relented and waited another couple of hours then decided he was
going to go and loaded his passengers, one of whom was his son. Again
the pilots intervened. One offered to drive the passengers to the
nearby Class D airport (KLEB) which has mile long paved runways. He
could fly there, pick up the passengers and take off with his full
load no problem. He refused the offer.

His takeoff was to the north, which is slightly uphill. The airplane
broke ground abouth 3/4 the length of the 2500 foot long runway and
wallowed nose high along the runway without gaining much height.

He wandered off to the right in this condition with his nose so high
he probably could not see the tall pinetree he flew into that bordered
the runway.

The airplane clipped off the top of the tree and crashed nose down on
the far side of it killing the two front seat occupants. His son and
the other rear passenger survived.

Corky Scott

[Mike Rapoport]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Consolidate the three definitions of
>> "night" to one (perhaps "when it is dark")
>
> Consolidating the twilight with the one-hour would be OK, but I don't
> think
> there's any (safe and logical) way to combine the lights (sunrise, sunset)
> and one-hour definitions.
>
> Hilton
>
>

It would be relatively easy if you forget about calculated sunrise and
sunset times and say "dark".

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:03:05 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <ZNO6e.8341$Bb3.4369@attbi_s22>::

>What would YOU eliminate from the Private Pilot training curriculum?

The current required material for airman certification (Private,
Instrument and Commercial) seems appropriate. Students might also
benefit from exposure to FAA Orders 7110.65* and perhaps some of the
FSDO Inspectors' related orders**. It also makes sense to make FAA
Advisory Circulars*** more readily available (free of charge) to
students and airmen by having those publications at the located FBO
training facilities.

Much of that material is covered in the Aeronautical Information
Manual, but I still believe there is significant benefit in depth of
understanding by reading the actual orders and circulars.


* http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/
** http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/
*** http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:59:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<CSe7e.15587$8Z6.12366@attbi_s21>::

>If we're
>trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
>need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.

I believe the aim of pilot certification is not to "get more people
into the sky," but to train safe pilots.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:28:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22>::

>>> Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid, pointless
>>> things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever
>>> used
>>> again...
>>
>> Are you talking about flight training, or High School? :~>
>
>Well, flight training, in this thread.
>
>I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the VOR,
>and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
>(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)
>
>And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
>altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.
>
>And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus IFR
>ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable alphabet-soup
>airspace designations.

I couldn't agree less.

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:28:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22>::

>>I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
>>VOR,
>>and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
>>(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

During my IR checkride, I spent time under the hood while the DE kept
putting the airplane into unusual attitudes (he wasn't a terribly good
pilot, obviously {8^).

After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are we".
He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.

This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

>>And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
>>altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

What do you mean? How can you understand density altitude w/o understanding
pressure altitude? And how safe can you be in the summer w/o understanding
density altitude and its effects?

>>And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
>>IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
>>alphabet-soup airspace designations.

How would you propose it be simplified? The only way I can imagine that
occurring is if some of the less restrictive rules be make more restrictive
(ie. VFR in all airspaces (but B, I'd imagine) requiring 1000' vertical and
1 mile horizontal).

I expect a lot of GA would dislike that simplification.

Or did you mean something different? I'm not sure why you mentioned IFR,
for example.

- Andrew

[Michael]

>What would YOU eliminate from the Private Pilot training curriculum?

As things stand, the FAR's are what they are, the NAS is what it is,
and the PTS is what it is. The typical private pilot training
curriculum is something of a joke - even when it actually exists and is
followed, it's merely an organized process for making sure the
applicant arrives at the checkride with the Part 61 (or 141) experience
requirements met and with the ability to pass the oral/practical
(meaning answer questions on PTS topics and fly PTS maneuvers to PTS
tolerances). Nothing can be removed from it because in the interest of
cutting costs, it has already been pared down to the bare minimum.

In order to streamline the process of making pilots, we would have to
bring the FAR's and the NAS into the 21st century. Here are the
changes I would make:

Revamp the weather briefing system. It's still a holdover from the
days when bandwidth was critically limited. AIRMET TANGO? WIE UFN?
Hooks and dots that must be memorized to know that you have light rain
and not showers? Get over it. If you need to condense the chart and
thus use symbols, they should be defined in a legend on the chart -
like they are on sectionals, low altitude enroutes, and all the other
charts people actually use. Write the text weather out in plain
english. Spend the time that need no longer be spent on memorizing
weather symbols and abbreviations on teaching about how weather
actually works.

Change the PTS concept. Right now, the private PTS is full of
maneuvers that have no real value AS THEY ARE TESTED. They all have
real value when you understand what they're actually about, and they
all need to be taught - but not as they're tested.

Consider slow flight. Why do we teach it? So the student can practice
control of the airplane at critically slow airspeeds - airspeeds so
slow that we normally encounter them only in the flare for landing and
maybe on rotation. This makes sense - it's hard to get any good at
something you can only practice for a couple of seconds at a time, only
a dozen times on even a good day. So how do we teach it?

We teach it at altitude. This is sensible. You don't want to teach
this at 25 ft, or even 250. Too much chance of something going wrong.
So we do it at 2500 ft. But we also require the student hold altitude,
+/- 100 ft. At 2500 ft, you will not judge altitude to within 100 ft
by looking outside the airplane. You will need to look inside, at the
panel. This is the LAST place you want the student looking during the
landing flare. So just by teaching the PTS maneuver before solo (as
required by Part 91) you are developing bad habits in the student -
habits that will make it harder for him to learn to land.

We SHOULD be doing slow flight without reference to the altimeter at
all, and in fact without reference to ANY instruments. That's because
the only time the skills developed are relevant, meaning in the flare,
you need to be 100% outside. But that's not the way the maneuver is
tested. As tested, it has no real value. Any flight intructor worth
his salt can tell if the student had solid skills in airplane control
at critically low airspeeds after one takeoff and one landing anyway.
The only problem is that if you drop slow flight from the PTS, it will
get dropped from most training syllabi - and there goes ANY exposure
the student would ever get to flight at critically slow airspeeds.

Slow flight is only one example. In reality, the way we test MOST of
the PTS maneuvers is inherently flawed, and makes extra work for the
student with no real benefit.

Streamline the regulations. We spend too much damn time teaching them
because they're too complex by half. A medical is good for 36 claendar
months, not three years. But a student pilot certificate is only good
for 24 calendar months. But you need 3 takeoffs and landings in the
last 90 days, not three months. And winds aloft are given in degrees
true, but tower winds are in degrees magnetic. And distances are
always in nautical miles, but visibility is always in statute miles.
And ATC will give you VFR flight following but won't open your VFR
flight plan (generating a strip manually instead). And a VFR tower
will close your IFR flight plan but not your VFR flight plan. WTF?
Pick a sensible system and stick with it.

Of course the design of the aircraft has its own issues. Even an
advanced aircraft like a Cirrus still has a mixture control. We've had
altitude-compensating carburetors since about 1938, but here we are in
the 21st century and even the most advanced GA airplane being made
still has a mixture control. And magnetos. Bloody-be-damned magnetos.
So we spend time on engine management. How to cold start. How to hot
start. How to lean for best power vs. best economy. Don't think it
makes much difference? A couple of local CFI's recently ran a C-152
out of gas. They used the 75% endurance chart, but they leaned for
best power (lean until RPM drop, then enrich to max RPM) and ran out of
gas at 3.2 hours, just a few minutes from home, when the chart clearly
showed an endurance of 4.2 hours - at best economy. For that matter,
why are we still seeing new airplanes shipped with the inherently
inaccurate (by design) ball-and-float gauges and no fuel flow
measurement, when a set of capacitive gauges and a fuel totalizer for
marine applications go for less than $100 each? So instead we spend
all this time on fuel management - and people still crash. If the
planes had accurate fuel gauges and fuel totalizers, how much time
would we really need to spend on fuel management?

Of course the truth is that the aircraft are the way they are because
of the FAA. In fact, until the FAA changes the way it does business,
it will not be possible to streamline private pilot training. Nothing
can be removed from the syllabus at this point.

Michael

[ShawnD2112]

I got a nerve-racking but painless lesson in density altitude a couple of
years ago in sounthern France. I'd flown my girlfriend and I in a
Taylorcraft BC-12D from the UK to Chateau Chassagne near Dijon. The
temperature in the UK rarely gets much above about 80 or 85 even in the
summer, but the performance of the airplane is noticably different than in
the winter.

While at the chateau, the temperature got up to about 100. I offered to
take the chef up for a ride in the Tcraft. He was a big lad. I taxied out
to the end of the grass strip (surrounded on the right and departure end by
trees, naturally), turned into nearly zero wind, and firewalled the
throttle. As the grass went by and went by and kept going by, every bit of
my knowledge of density altitude shot through my mind in a serious "Oh,
Sh*t, I hadn't thought about this!" moment. We finally broke ground way too
far down the runway and she wasn't climbing like she should have. I kept
the nose up as high as I dared, pleading it to just clear the trees - that
was all I wanted; just to clear the trees and we could sort everything else
out after that. The trees kept coming, the plane kept not climbing, and it
was looking pretty dire there for a few moments.

Well, we finally reached the tree line and cleared it by a mere few feet.
No harm done in the end and my passenger didn't know enough to know just how
close it had been. But I was sweating bullets for the next 20 minutes and
it had nothing to do with the heat.

Lesson there - when you're not flying in your normal environment, take a
moment to think about all those things you take for granted on your home
turf! Density altitude DOES matter, you just might not need to think much
about it where you fly.

Cheers,
Shawn



"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:54:29 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature
>>is
>>'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
>>aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
>>the POH.
>
> There in fact IS such a chart. It's actually one of those adjustable
> cardboard devices that allows you to dial in various parameters such
> as temperature, altitude, wind, direction of wind, runway surface
> type, whether it's sloped up or down and by how much, what type of
> airplane etc. etc.
>
> Dial all that stuff in and the calculator reads out the necessary
> runway length. Compare that to the runway you are about to use.
>
> I found mine at Sporty's Pilot Shop. Saw it recommended in the "Hold
> on Harvey (or whatever the name was) FAA video about density altitude.
>
> There were three very sobering video's in the VCR. The above
> mentioned one was poor quality because the Video cam wasn't found for
> several years or so in the wreck. It was shot from a Cessna L-19, or
> the civilian version of it and there were two guys in it flying up a
> mountain range that kept getting higher and higher. They got
> themselves trapped heading into a mountain canyon that rose faster
> than they could climb and attempted to turn around. The pilots last
> words were "Hang on Harvey (or whatever the passengers name was)" and
> you see the ground go upside down. You can hear the stall warning
> horn going off as the pilot attempts the turn (to the right). He
> drops the nose, but then has to pull it back up right away because the
> ground is so close. The stall warning horn goes off again and the
> ground goes upside down.
>
> In the second accident you are looking at a scene in a really rugged
> canyon from the hikers viewpoint. They hear the sound of an airplane
> and a Cessna goes by at about their eye level. You hear them
> discussing it and then the airplane noises come back and you see the
> airplane coming back at them, but below the rim of the canyon. It
> smashes right into it below them.
>
> The third accident was the best quality video because it was shot at
> an airshow. It looked like it was a Beech T-34 or something very
> similar. It was at a high altitude runway and it was apparently very
> hot. The pilot goes up for a loop and as he's rounding out for the
> pull out, he runs out of air.
>
> All of these accidents were due to the pilots not understanding the
> affect of density altitude on the performance of their airplane, and
> not allowing for it.
>
> In addition to the crash video's there is a comprehensive discussion
> by a very heavy set FAA crash investigator who had an ego to match.
> He was impressively overbearing and caustic.
>
> Most density altitude misshaps occur in the high plains or mountain
> area's of the west, but not all of them.
>
> There was a density altitude related accident here at a local turf
> runway airport in Vermont a number of years ago. A pilot (think he
> was flying a Cherokee) was visiting and decided to take off with three
> passengers during the heat of the day (it was high summer). Several
> of the local pilots got in his face and aggressively spoke to him
> about the situation pointing out how hot it was and that with the full
> load what effect that would have on his marginal performance and tried
> to persuade him to wait.
>
> He relented and waited another couple of hours then decided he was
> going to go and loaded his passengers, one of whom was his son. Again
> the pilots intervened. One offered to drive the passengers to the
> nearby Class D airport (KLEB) which has mile long paved runways. He
> could fly there, pick up the passengers and take off with his full
> load no problem. He refused the offer.
>
> His takeoff was to the north, which is slightly uphill. The airplane
> broke ground abouth 3/4 the length of the 2500 foot long runway and
> wallowed nose high along the runway without gaining much height.
>
> He wandered off to the right in this condition with his nose so high
> he probably could not see the tall pinetree he flew into that bordered
> the runway.
>
> The airplane clipped off the top of the tree and crashed nose down on
> the far side of it killing the two front seat occupants. His son and
> the other rear passenger survived.
>
> Corky Scott

[Jay Honeck]

>> It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature
>> is
>> 'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
>> aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
>> the POH.
>>
>
> This post after you so strongly advocate AGAINST rote learning? You don't
> make
> sense!

Keeping a simple chart in the plane, versus trying to teach someone the
difference between "pressure" and "density" altitudes, and how to compute it
on the fly?

Makes sense to me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Every year, pilots get hurt by disregarding DA effects on their flying.
> And you want to do away with at least trying to educate them on it?

Not at all. Density altitude is extremely dangerous, and must always be
considered, especially in underpowered aircraft, or at high altitude
airports.

Which has NOTHING to do with the Feds asking absurd questions about
"pressure" versus "density" altitude in the written exam. These questions
could be easily replaced entirely with questions that were actually relevant
to the problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> In order to streamline the process of making pilots, we would
> have to

(BIG SNIP OF GREAT STUFF)

Thanks for sharing that, Michael. Great points, all right on the money.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>If we're
>>trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
>>need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.
>
> I believe the aim of pilot certification is not to "get more people
> into the sky," but to train safe pilots.

If we don't do the former, we won't need the latter.

Or, at least, not very many of them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are
> we".
> He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.
>
> This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)

Can I do that? Sure. Can I name the last time I needed to know that?
Nope. Can I even name the last time I did it? Nope.

If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd suddenly
awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is it
doing on the written exam for Private Pilot? Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?

I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got a
Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow the
needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing. Have fun, but don't fool
yourself into believing that this is a necessary or common way of flying
anymore. It *can* be eliminated from the Private Pilot curriculum, right
along with ADFs.

Which isn't to say that tracking a VOR isn't kind of fun, and (for those of
us at the bottom of the aviation food chain) still necessary for IFR flight.
But for regular, VFR navigation, VORs have pretty much outlived their
usefulness.

Oh, well. Keep VOR questions on the written exam for Instrument Pilot, for
the moment. In five more years everything will be GPS based, and
interpreting a VOR will be like knowing how to gauge your position by
listening to two tones in your headset.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:30:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <3qA7e.14340$xL4.8899@attbi_s72>::

>>>If we're
>>>trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
>>>need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.
>>
>> I believe the aim of pilot certification is not to "get more people
>> into the sky," but to train safe pilots.
>
>If we don't do the former, we won't need the latter.

Is this what you're saying:

If we don't aim to "get more people into the sky,"
we won't need to train safe pilots.

If not, what do you mean?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:48:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<PGA7e.14356$xL4.13659@attbi_s72>::

>If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
>figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd suddenly
>awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is it
>doing on the written exam for Private Pilot?

Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
airborne (or a solar storm renders GPS unusable) and you find yourself
above an undercast? If the aircraft isn't equipped with ADF, and you
haven't been trained to use VOR navigation, you'd have to request a DF
steer from FSS, or if you're located in an area of ATC radar coverage,
vectors.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)
>
> Can I do that? Sure. Can I name the last time I needed to know that?
> Nope. Can I even name the last time I did it? Nope.
>
> If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
> figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd suddenly
> awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is it
> doing on the written exam for Private Pilot? Who in the world uses VORs
> for daily flight anymore?

Well, hell, who uses pilotage anymore? Hasn't everybody got a GPS these days?
Why should anyone be required to learn any form of navigation that isn't
state-of-the-art?

</sarcasm>

What will you do when that black box fails? I want to be able to use *any*
navigational equipment that happens to be in the plane I'm flying, and *you'd*
better be able to also ('cause I don't want you running into me while you're
trying to remember how it works).

When they disable the VOR network, *then* they should take all the questions
about it off the exams, but not until then.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[George Patterson]

Michael wrote:
>
> Consider slow flight. Why do we teach it?

According to several of my instructors, we teach it because if you get trapped
by deteriorating weather, it's a lot safer to be looking for a good place to
land at slow speed than at cruise.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jay Honeck]

> Is this what you're saying:
>
> If we don't aim to "get more people into the sky,"
> we won't need to train safe pilots.
>
> If not, what do you mean?

Because general aviation as we know it will be dead in ten years if we don't
start "filling the skies" with pilots. In short, it won't matter what kind
of pilots we're training -- safe or not -- if we don't get more applicants
for the PPL.

When the Baby Boomers start to lose their medicals, the GA infrastructure
(FBOs, flight schools, avionics shops) -- already teetering on the brink --
will simply collapse if we don't get a whole bunch of new pilots trained and
in the sky.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> airborne (or a solar storm renders GPS unusable) and you find yourself
> above an undercast? If the aircraft isn't equipped with ADF, and you
> haven't been trained to use VOR navigation, you'd have to request a DF
> steer from FSS, or if you're located in an area of ATC radar coverage,
> vectors.

And if the sun suddenly went supernova, I'd be in big trouble, too.

Why do I suspect that the old A/N radio range pilots were saying the same
thing back in the '50s, when the Feds started decommissioning them?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What will you do when that black box fails? I want to be able to use *any*
> navigational equipment that happens to be in the plane I'm flying, and
> *you'd* better be able to also ('cause I don't want you running into me
> while you're trying to remember how it works).
>
> When they disable the VOR network, *then* they should take all the
> questions about it off the exams, but not until then.

I didn't say anything about not training pilots to use VORs, nor did I say
to take all VOR questions off the test.

I was referring specifically to the pages and pages (ad nauseum) of study
questions that show you a VOR instrument, totally out of context with
anything else, and ask you to determine where you are in relation to the
transmitter.

First of all, if I'm flying along and the "black box" goes dead, I've been
following my position on my sectional -- so I have a pretty good idea where
I am from the get-go. It's not like I'm going to turn on my VOR with NO
knowledge of where I am. I will know approximately where I am in relation
to the transmitter before I even turn it on (after all -- I will need my
sectional to even determine which VOR frequency to tune in -- duh), and will
thus be able to easily and quickly determine my position from/to it. From
that point on, reading a VOR needle is child's play.

The point is, get stupid "gotcha!" questions like these off the written
test. They are put there to confuse and eliminate candidates, nothing
more, nothing less -- and the knowledge they purport to "test" isn't even
represented well by the questions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I was referring specifically to the pages and pages (ad nauseum) of study
> questions that show you a VOR instrument, totally out of context with
> anything else, and ask you to determine where you are in relation to the
> transmitter.
>
> The point is, get stupid "gotcha!" questions like these off the written
> test.

It's been a long time since I studied for the PPC written, but I don't recall a
single navigation question that was a "gotcha." Every single one had one
obviously correct answer that was obviously correct if you had any idea how the
things worked. Now, I took my written just before my 300 mile cross-country, so
I had been using a VOR for some time. If you found them to be "gotchas", I'd say
you didn't really have a handle on VOR navigation at the time.

As far as there being pages of study questions, that's simply because there are
ten study questions for every one that gets selected for the exam you take, and
all of those ten are basically the same. If you could've handled one, you
could've answered any of them.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's been a long time since I studied for the PPC written, but I don't
> recall a single navigation question that was a "gotcha." Every single one
> had one obviously correct answer that was obviously correct if you had any
> idea how the things worked. Now, I took my written just before my 300 mile
> cross-country, so I had been using a VOR for some time. If you found them
> to be "gotchas", I'd say you didn't really have a handle on VOR navigation
> at the time.

As I said, I scored in the upper 90s, some ten years ago, and have no
trouble using VORs. But they *did* take a significant amount of time to get
proficient at using, and I hope that I'm the last generation of pilots to
have to rely on such an antiquated system for primary navigation.

Since nowadays VFR pilots have little use for VORs, (I don't turn them on --
ever -- except for the occasional practice VOR approach), to put those kind
of questions on the Private written exam is just another way to weed out
potential pilots.

I wonder if VOR tracking is tested in the new Sport Pilot curriculum?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Hilton]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Since nowadays VFR pilots have little use for VORs, (I don't turn them
on --
> ever -- except for the occasional practice VOR approach), to put those
kind
> of questions on the Private written exam is just another way to weed out
> potential pilots.

I love these general and absolutely correct conclusions based upon a
statistical sampling of one.

Jay, so what percentage of people fail their knowledge tests? Then what
percentage of those people failed because of questions you believe shouldn't
be there. I think we'd be approaching 0-1% - at the most.

Hilton

[Ross Oliver]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Who in the world uses VORs
>for daily flight anymore?


Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
and produced at taxpayer expense.

Ross Oliver
Cheap ******* Aviator

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I was referring specifically to the pages and pages (ad nauseum) of study
> questions that show you a VOR instrument, totally out of context with
> anything else, and ask you to determine where you are in relation to the
> transmitter.


So what? Is that difficult for you? Consider that an "easy" question that
counts against the finite number they can ask. It could be replaced with a
bunch of PITA airspace questions.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dan Luke]

"George Patterson" wrote:
>> Consider slow flight. Why do we teach it?
>
> According to several of my instructors, we teach it because if you get
> trapped by deteriorating weather, it's a lot safer to be looking for a
> good place to land at slow speed than at cruise.

Wow, that's a scary picture: a newbie PP stuck in bad weather, flying
around with the stall horn blowing.
--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Wow, that's a scary picture: a newbie PP stuck in bad weather, flying
> around with the stall horn blowing.


Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then recover
underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is. Can you
imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an intentional
spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny brains....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are
>> we".
>> He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.
>>
>> This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?
>
> You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)

A few years (3? 4?) ago. Did I just use the two VORs or did I use a VOR and
DME? I don't recall which, to be honest. The airplace I used for the
checkride was, I recall, /A.

> Who in the world uses VORs
> for daily flight anymore?

Out of the "neighborhood", I do.

> I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got a
> Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
> and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow
> the
> needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing.

Actually, GPS was a part of my IR training. It was just annoyingly bad luck
that I took the checkride in a /A instead of /G. Fortunately, I'd a good
CFII. The /A had an ADF; the /G didn't. Naturally, though, the DE
required an NDB approach of me. No problem.

If I'd two GPSs, perhaps it would be different. But since I've but one, I
track my location with VORs too.

I'd like to think I'd do that even with two GPSs. I've the tools in the
airplane; it's silly to waste them. It's more to do, but this also means
I've some "slack" if I ever grow overloaded (and I'm "exercising" to help
avoid that).

[...]
> Which isn't to say that tracking a VOR isn't kind of fun, and (for those
> of us at the bottom of the aviation food chain) still necessary for IFR
> flight. But for regular, VFR navigation, VORs have pretty much outlived
> their usefulness.

The planes that are often rented to VFR-only pilots are often as historic as
radio ranges, no <laugh>?

[...]

> In five more years everything will be GPS based, and
> interpreting a VOR will be like knowing how to gauge your position by
> listening to two tones in your headset.

That's a separate issue. I'm not entirely comfortable with GPS-only, given
the ease with which it can be jammed or otherwise impacted. Why not have
the new "GPS" units dual capable, perhaps LORAN and GPS? From a user
perspective, we'd never see a difference, but it would offer greater
resilience.

These new units could even use VORs. It's not the navaid so much as the UI,
I think, that makes it a big deal.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

[...]
> I was referring specifically to the pages and pages (ad nauseum) of study
> questions that show you a VOR instrument, totally out of context with
> anything else, and ask you to determine where you are in relation to the
> transmitter.

I've always thought of that as akin to unusual attitude work. It's practice
for something having already gone wrong.

> First of all, if I'm flying along and the "black box" goes dead, I've been
> following my position on my sectional -- so I have a pretty good idea
> where
> I am from the get-go.

Except that the GPS signal has been warped by some weird error in either the
signal or your box. You're not where you think you are.

Except you weren't flying. You were sleeping in the right seat. The pilot
was so shocked that the GPS screen went blank that he fainted, but not
before waking you up.

Except you're not sure whether you're approaching or past that nearby VOR.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Hilton wrote:

> Jay, so what percentage of people fail their knowledge tests?Â*Â*ThenÂ*what
> percentage of those people failed because of questions you believe
> shouldn't be there.Â*Â*IÂ*thinkÂ*we'dÂ*beÂ*approachingÂ*0-1%Â*-Â*atÂ*theÂ*most.

In defense of this thread, I think you're asking the wrong question (or at
least you're missing one of the two questions). While your question is
reasonable, the other is "what is the cost of including these questions?"

It's not just an increased failure rate. It may also serve to keep people
from taking the test in the first place, either because it is "too hard" or
because it adds to the time required for the PPL and this passes beyond
certain individuals' personal thresholds' for the time they're willing to
spend.

While VORs are still the main electronic nav in many planes (including
rentals), I think that they need to stay on the test. But I would like to
see the test simplified *if* it would translate to more pilots.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

>>Who in the world uses VORs
>>for daily flight anymore?
>
>
> Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
> and produced at taxpayer expense.

Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?

Glad I own an AvMap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, so what percentage of people fail their knowledge tests? Then what
> percentage of those people failed because of questions you believe
> shouldn't
> be there. I think we'd be approaching 0-1% - at the most.

Irrelevant.

The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take the
test.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then
> recover underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is.
> Can you imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an
> intentional spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny
> brains....

And appalling short life-spans.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:37:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <vyH7e.15254$xL4.5745@attbi_s72>::

>... to put those kind of questions on the Private written exam is just
>another way to weed out potential pilots.

That's true. The potential pilots it weeds out are those who are
incapable of understanding VOR operations. Would you prefer to share
the skies with them?

Dumbing down the airman training curricula in blind fear of future
dwindling numbers in our ranks is a policy about as astute as
squandering tens of billions of dollars of tax payers' money waging
your daddy's war during a time when our nation's future citizens are
being so poorly educated that it's embarrassing if not freighting.
Fortunately, it is you, not me, who will have to live in that future
America.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:30:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <AzG7e.15718$Bb3.2289@attbi_s22>::

>
>And if the sun suddenly went supernova, I'd be in big trouble, too.

What you suggest isn't likely to occur in our time. What I suggested
has occurred recently and is likely to occur again.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got
>> a
>> Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
>> and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow
>> the
>> needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing.
>
> Actually, GPS was a part of my IR training. It was just annoyingly bad
> luck
> that I took the checkride in a /A instead of /G. Fortunately, I'd a good
> CFII. The /A had an ADF; the /G didn't. Naturally, though, the DE
> required an NDB approach of me. No problem.

Totally different point. Of course VORs are necessary for IFR flight
training, and of course they should be a major part of the written.

The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
flying more accessible to all?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:37:41 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <FsP7e.17988$GJ.659@attbi_s71>::

>>>Who in the world uses VORs
>>>for daily flight anymore?
>>
>>
>> Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
>> and produced at taxpayer expense.
>
>Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?
>
>Glad I own an AvMap.

Is your AvMap certified for aerial navigation?

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> What I suggested
> has occurred recently and is likely to occur again.
>

When was the last widespread GPS outage (when was the first, for that
matter?)? Except local outages announced per NOTAM, since those don't
really count.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Glad I own an AvMap.
>

So what do you pay for a database update program with monthly updates?
Compare apples to apples, please.

FWIW, it's not Garmin but Jeppesen charging that amount - and the
Garmin is an IFR certified unit, yours isn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Totally different point. Of course VORs are necessary for IFR flight
> training, and of course they should be a major part of the written.

My point was that I don't argue from a "because it's what I'm used to"
perspective. I'm quite comfortable with GPSs, having flown behind a couple
of BK models and the Garmin 430.

> The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
> flying more accessible to all?

The planes in which I did my PPL didn't have GPS. They couldn't even be
counted upon to have two working VORs...or even two working COMMs. A VOR
was the only electronic navaid available in those aircraft.

Upgrade the entire fleet, and I might be taking your side of the argument
(actually, it would be moot {8^). But as long as VORs are actually in the
aircraft (and I don't mean a fancy VOR-exploiting moving map RNAV type
machine {8^), the pilots flying those should learn them.

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Since nowadays VFR pilots have little use for VORs, (I don't turn them
> on -- ever -- except for the occasional practice VOR approach), to put
those
> kind of questions on the Private written exam is just another way to weed
out
> potential pilots.
>

Gee...when I took the written back in 1980, most of the questions were 1)
pilotage/dead-reckoning, 2) ADF, and 3) VOR, in that order. RNAV didn't
exist except in bizjets and DME was an analog display (50nm max range).

Your cross-country was supposed to be pilotage and using VOR's only for
cross-checking.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:20:56 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in e.com>::

>But I would like to see the test simplified *if* it would translate
>to more pilots.

I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
result in increased safety not numbers.

With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:40:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<5vP7e.16612$xL4.10899@attbi_s72>::

>The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
>because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take the
>test.

I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:44:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <gzP7e.17999$GJ.670@attbi_s71>::

>The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
>flying more accessible to all?

A more appropriate question might be, what should be added to the
airman's written test to increase flight safety.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:17:57 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>[In 1980] RNAV didn't exist except in bizjets ...

I was using RNAV in 1971 in a Cessna 177.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ross Oliver" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >Who in the world uses VORs
> >for daily flight anymore?
>
>
> Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
> and produced at taxpayer expense.
>

You must really be ****ed at Rand-McNally, too, and their $4 tax for their
atlas.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >>Who in the world uses VORs
> >>for daily flight anymore?
> >
> >
> > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
> > and produced at taxpayer expense.
>
> Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?
>
> Glad I own an AvMap.

Why? The AvMap tax is $600/yr.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FsP7e.17988$GJ.659@attbi_s71...
> >>Who in the world uses VORs
> >>for daily flight anymore?
> >
> >
> > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
> > and produced at taxpayer expense.

You'd really be ****ed at what King charges for the KLN-94!

>
> Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?
>
> Glad I own an AvMap.

Hmmm...flown any approaches with that one? :~)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>> [In 1980] RNAV didn't exist except in bizjets ...
>
> I was using RNAV in 1971 in a Cessna 177.


RNAV was no more common than that C-177. It was something we read about; not
something that we got to use. I didn't even see my first LORAN until around
1984.

GPS? Two weeks ago, when I did my bienial.... the first one in 15 years.
Things have changed a bit.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Newps]

>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>airborne

Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>airborne
>
> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>

While I am quite sure there is a a way they could turn it off if they
decided to they certainly could make it incorrect without the proper
decryption hard/software that the GPS in your plane will think it is flying
over JFK when you are in LAX.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> >>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> >>airborne
>
> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>

Meb'be one of them terrorists with a 50cal rifle will shoot them all down!!!

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> [In 1980] RNAV didn't exist except in bizjets ...
> >
> > I was using RNAV in 1971 in a Cessna 177.

Sure.

>
>
> RNAV was no more common than that C-177.

It, by itself, probably cost more than the Cardinal did.

> It was something we read about; not
> something that we got to use. I didn't even see my first LORAN until
around
> 1984.

I finally got to use RNAV in about '85. That King thingee. Didn't have LORAN
at all in the Rocky Mountain west due to the gap, AIR.

Didn't get to use GPS until I bought my second bird in 2001 and all that was
all of a Lowrance POS that worked about half the time.

>
> GPS? Two weeks ago, when I did my bienial.... the first one in 15 years.
> Things have changed a bit.

One of these days...one of these days!!

[ShawnD2112]

Interestingly enough, VORs and ADFs aren't even talked about in the UK PPL
except in the "that thing in the panel there is a VOR. Don't worry about
it" kind of sense. That stuff's considered advanced instrument equipment
and FAR to complicated for the average PPL to learn about without his brains
leaking out his ears.

Shawn


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:PGA7e.14356$xL4.13659@attbi_s72...
>> After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are
>> we".
>> He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.
>>
>> This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?
>
> You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)
>
> Can I do that? Sure. Can I name the last time I needed to know that?
> Nope. Can I even name the last time I did it? Nope.
>
> If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
> figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd
> suddenly awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the
> hell is it doing on the written exam for Private Pilot? Who in the world
> uses VORs for daily flight anymore?
>
> I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got a
> Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
> and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow
> the needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing. Have fun, but don't
> fool yourself into believing that this is a necessary or common way of
> flying anymore. It *can* be eliminated from the Private Pilot
> curriculum, right along with ADFs.
>
> Which isn't to say that tracking a VOR isn't kind of fun, and (for those
> of us at the bottom of the aviation food chain) still necessary for IFR
> flight. But for regular, VFR navigation, VORs have pretty much outlived
> their usefulness.
>
> Oh, well. Keep VOR questions on the written exam for Instrument Pilot,
> for the moment. In five more years everything will be GPS based, and
> interpreting a VOR will be like knowing how to gauge your position by
> listening to two tones in your headset.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:28:30 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>airborne
>
>Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.

True. But the military does have the ability to jam GPS to thwart
incoming missiles. The effect for the pilot would be similar...

[ShawnD2112]

I think you just answered your own question, Larry. Them's the same
actions I'd take if I was on top and the VOR went and packed up, so how is a
GPS packing up any different?

Shawn
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:48:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in
> <PGA7e.14356$xL4.13659@attbi_s72>::
>
>>If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
>>figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd
>>suddenly
>>awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is
>>it
>>doing on the written exam for Private Pilot?
>
> Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> airborne (or a solar storm renders GPS unusable) and you find yourself
> above an undercast? If the aircraft isn't equipped with ADF, and you
> haven't been trained to use VOR navigation, you'd have to request a DF
> steer from FSS, or if you're located in an area of ATC radar coverage,
> vectors.

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Gee...when I took the written back in 1980 ... RNAV didn't
> exist except in bizjets and DME was an analog display (50nm max
range).

1981 Skylanes were optionally equipped with RN-478A RNAV and R-476A DME
(digital display).

a.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>>airborne
>>
>>Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>>
>
>
> Meb'be one of them terrorists with a 50cal rifle will shoot them all down!!!

I have a 50 cal handgun but I'm not so good at moving targets.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:28:30 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>
>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>>airborne
>>
>>Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>
>
> True. But the military does have the ability to jam GPS to thwart
> incoming missiles. The effect for the pilot would be similar...

Not on an instantaneous basis. Some general somewhere doesn't detect an
incoming missile and then flip a switch to make GPS unreliable. It
takes days.

[Blanche]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
[snip]
>squandering tens of billions of dollars of tax payers' money waging
>your daddy's war during a time when our nation's future citizens are
>being so poorly educated that it's embarrassing if not freighting.

I aint poorly educated! I'm gonna be retrained using Federal
monies for my next job -- working at Home Depot.

blanche-unemployed for 6+ months
BA, MS (math)
MS (computer science)
almost PhuD (math & computer science)

[Blanche]

Ross Oliver > wrote:
>Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>Who in the world uses VORs
>>for daily flight anymore?
>
>
>Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
>and produced at taxpayer expense.

And those of us unable to afford the $xxxx to buy and install a GPS.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Newps" wrote, "I have a 50 cal handgun but I'm not so good at moving
targets."

Have you actually dared to fire it? Hurts my hand just to look at one!

Jon

[John Clonts]

> I was referring specifically to the pages and pages (ad nauseum) of
study
> questions that show you a VOR instrument, totally out of context with
> anything else, and ask you to determine where you are in relation to
the
> transmitter.

I think those questions are good because if you can't answer them
instantly and
easily, you're doing it the hard way. If you understand the VOR as a
"quadrature instrument" instead of (or in addition to) as a "course
instrument",
it's VERY easy.

I agree though that with a working GPS the VORs are pretty useless...
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[John Clonts]

> > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data
collected
> > and produced at taxpayer expense.

> You'd really be ****ed at what King charges for the KLN-94!

$380 via internet download...
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Newps]

> Larry Dighera > wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>squandering tens of billions of dollars of tax payers' money waging
>>your daddy's war during a time when our nation's future citizens are
>>being so poorly educated that it's embarrassing if not freighting.

Yeah, look what it did for your spelling.

[Newps]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

> "Newps" wrote, "I have a 50 cal handgun but I'm not so good at moving
> targets."
>
> Have you actually dared to fire it? Hurts my hand just to look at one!

It's pretty exciting when you light it off.

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?
>
> Glad I own an AvMap.

For VFR, I would agree, but when IFR and when your destination only has a
GPS approach to get you through the layer and low visibility so that you
can spend time with your family on vacation or get to a client site to work
the billable hours, it is money well spent.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:58:15 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:FsP7e.17988$GJ.659@attbi_s71...
>> >>Who in the world uses VORs
>> >>for daily flight anymore?
>> >
>> >
>> > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
>> > and produced at taxpayer expense.
>
>You'd really be ****ed at what King charges for the KLN-94!

$380 for 13 cycles if you do the download option.

Course, if Jay wants to arrange to get the raw data monthly, compile
it into the appropriate database format(s) and publish it for free,
I'm sure many would be happy to switch....

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:14:40 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:58:15 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>news:FsP7e.17988$GJ.659@attbi_s71...
>>> >>Who in the world uses VORs
>>> >>for daily flight anymore?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
>>> > and produced at taxpayer expense.
>>
>>You'd really be ****ed at what King charges for the KLN-94!
>
>$380 for 13 cycles if you do the download option.
>
>Course, if Jay wants to arrange to get the raw data monthly, compile
>it into the appropriate database format(s) and publish it for free,
>I'm sure many would be happy to switch....

Looking back on the thread, that should read if Ross wants to publish
a database. The attribution got messed up in my reader. Sorry Jay.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:28:30 -0600, Newps > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>>>airborne
>>>
>>>Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>>
>>
>> True. But the military does have the ability to jam GPS to thwart
>> incoming missiles. The effect for the pilot would be similar...
>
> Not on an instantaneous basis. Some general somewhere doesn't detect an
> incoming missile and then flip a switch to make GPS unreliable. It takes
> days.

I'll bet somebody at SpaceCom could turn that thing of within minutes should
they be ordered to.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> >>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> >>airborne
>
> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>
Plus the fact that the loss of GPS could put the lives of hundreds of
thousands of commercial passengers in the air, in peril. Not a good thing
to do, politically speaking. It would also cause problems with surveyors,
and many other groups, also. The economic fallout would be huge.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > >>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> > >>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> > >>airborne
> >
> > Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
> >
> Plus the fact that the loss of GPS could put the lives of hundreds of
> thousands of commercial passengers in the air, in peril. Not a good thing
> to do, politically speaking. It would also cause problems with surveyors,
> and many other groups, also. The economic fallout would be huge.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Matt Barrow]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data
> collected
> > > and produced at taxpayer expense.
>
> > You'd really be ****ed at what King charges for the KLN-94!
>
> $380 via internet download...

And Garmin's updates, which does not collect and produce the data, Jeppesen
does, doesn't cost $400 (as someone else pointed out). Evidently, Ross finds
it so much easier to **** and moan rather than obtain a clue how all the
process works (which is my point, not the exact numbers).

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?
> >
> > Glad I own an AvMap.
>
> For VFR, I would agree, but when IFR and when your destination only has a
> GPS approach to get you through the layer and low visibility so that you
> can spend time with your family on vacation or get to a client site to
work
> the billable hours, it is money well spent.

Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really
paying a big tax!!

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Newps >
wrote:

> >>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
> >>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
> >>airborne
>
> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.

don't bet on it.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>
> don't bet on it.

And besides, even if you could bet on it, the GPS receiver itself is a
possible point of failure (and probably more likely than the satellite
network).

[Jay Masino]

Newps > wrote:


>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>airborne

> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.

I'm involved with supporting spacecraft operations of NASA's constellation
of EOS spacecraft. Somewhere, there's a satellite control center that
operates the constellation of GPS spacecraft. It may be true that the
military can't "throw a switch", but there's no doubt that they can
command each satellite to shut itself down and go into "safe hold",
effectively shutting down the GPS system.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Don Tuite]

On 16 Apr 2005 00:26:54 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:

>Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>>airborne
>
>> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>
>I'm involved with supporting spacecraft operations of NASA's constellation
>of EOS spacecraft. Somewhere, there's a satellite control center that
>operates the constellation of GPS spacecraft. It may be true that the
>military can't "throw a switch", but there's no doubt that they can
>command each satellite to shut itself down and go into "safe hold",
>effectively shutting down the GPS system.

I wrote some articles on GPS for Trimble in the early '80s. I don't
have my notes from then, but there are a few things I sort of remember
that sort of come down evenly on both sides of the debate.

One is that the Navstar system was a joint military/civilian effort,
implying a promise to keep it operational in most circumstances.

The other is that the satellites' orbits have to be tracked and
corrected ephemerides regularly updated with an uplink from the Naval
Observeratory, which I assume is how they can deliberately degrade C/A
coverage over specific geographic areas.

(The NO would have been a single point of failure. By now, there is
probably some redundancy.)

Feel free to bring me up to date.

Don

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:37:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <vyH7e.15254$xL4.5745@attbi_s72>::
>
>
>>... to put those kind of questions on the Private written exam is just
>>another way to weed out potential pilots.
>
> That's true. The potential pilots it weeds out are those who are
> incapable of understanding VOR operations. Would you prefer to share
> the skies with them?

Actually, it doesn't even do that. There are what? Maybe 2 or 3 questions on the
test that deal with VORs? Anybody who flunks 'cause they missed those is also
missing a lot of other knowledge that they really should have.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[George Patterson]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
> Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then recover
> underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is. Can you
> imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an intentional
> spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny brains....

I agree. According to Gann in his autobiography, the conventional wisdon in
those days was that the best way to handle thunderstorms was to bull right
through the center. I guess that, either way it works out, that technique gets
you through the storm the most rapidly.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Hilton]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then
recover
> underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is. Can you
> imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an
intentional
> spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny brains....

How then would you suggest getting down through an overcast without
IFR-capable instruments?

[Let's ignore the decision making to put them there in the first place.
Let's just assume you're on top of an overcast that has 1000' bases, and you
don't have enough fuel to go far enough to see the ground]

A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow airspeed
that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.

Hilton

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:36:30 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:28:30 -0600, Newps > wrote
>> in >::
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>>>>>the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>>>>>airborne
>>>
>>>Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>>
>>
>> True. But the military does have the ability to jam GPS to thwart
>> incoming missiles. The effect for the pilot would be similar...
>
>Not on an instantaneous basis. Some general somewhere doesn't detect an
>incoming missile and then flip a switch to make GPS unreliable. It
>takes days.

Truly? What is the source of that bit of information?

[Skywise]

Don Tuite > wrote in
:

> On 16 Apr 2005 00:26:54 GMT, (Jay Masino)
> wrote:
>
>>Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do
>>>>>in the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while
>>>>>you're airborne
>>
>>> Can't be done. There is no on/off switch.
>>
>>I'm involved with supporting spacecraft operations of NASA's
>>constellation of EOS spacecraft. Somewhere, there's a satellite control
>>center that operates the constellation of GPS spacecraft. It may be
>>true that the military can't "throw a switch", but there's no doubt that
>>they can command each satellite to shut itself down and go into "safe
>>hold", effectively shutting down the GPS system.
>
> I wrote some articles on GPS for Trimble in the early '80s. I don't
> have my notes from then, but there are a few things I sort of remember
> that sort of come down evenly on both sides of the debate.
>
> One is that the Navstar system was a joint military/civilian effort,
> implying a promise to keep it operational in most circumstances.
>
> The other is that the satellites' orbits have to be tracked and
> corrected ephemerides regularly updated with an uplink from the Naval
> Observeratory, which I assume is how they can deliberately degrade C/A
> coverage over specific geographic areas.
>
> (The NO would have been a single point of failure. By now, there is
> probably some redundancy.)
>
> Feel free to bring me up to date.
>
> Don

A small hobby of mine is satellite observing, so I asked about
this amongst some of those folks and got the following tidbits.

Individual NAVSTAR sats can surely be shut down, aka sleep mode.
This would be necessary in the event of a satellite sending
erroneous data. You need to be able to shut it off to keep the
system working. If they really wanted to, they could put them
all into sleep mode, but that is near nil probability as it
would also deny the military of their use.

However, it may take a few hours to accomplish for any given
sat as it must be within communications range which isn't
100% of the time.

Although President Clinton ordered the 'selective accuracy' mode
to be turned off, it surely can be turned back on again. This
would degrade the accuracy, but the system woudl still be useable.

Also, it was the military can use 'selective deniability' to
degrade or disabel to civilian signal in a local region.

There are GPS jammers, but their effectiveness is disputed.

Due to the tight control of GPS by the US gov, the Europeans
are develping their own system called GALILEO which will use
the same base frequency (L1) as the NAVSTAR which means most
consumer level GPS units will be compatible. Once this is
available, the idea of the US Gov 'turning off' GPS is moot.

The Russians have GLONASS but it's of limited use.

As for getting rid of VOR training/testing, I think it's silly,
and I don't even have a PPL!!! I know flight sims aren't 100%
accurate but I have no trouble using VOR's in MSFS. Besides,
I think arguing to get rid of VOR training/testing is like
arguing to get rid of parallel parking training/testing in
drivers ed. They've tried making drivers licenses easier to
get and look where it got us. A lot of bad drivers. Now they're
starting to make it tougher again. (too little too late if you
ask me)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Skywise > wrote:

> There are GPS jammers, but their effectiveness is disputed.

by who?

>
> Due to the tight control of GPS by the US gov, the Europeans
> are develping their own system called GALILEO which will use
> the same base frequency (L1) as the NAVSTAR which means most
> consumer level GPS units will be compatible. Once this is
> available, the idea of the US Gov 'turning off' GPS is moot.

Moot? Hardly. You think Galileo couldn't be jammed?

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:29:37 -0000, Skywise wrote:

>Due to the tight control of GPS by the US gov, the Europeans
>are develping their own system called GALILEO which will use
>the same base frequency (L1) as the NAVSTAR which means most
>consumer level GPS units will be compatible. Once this is
>available, the idea of the US Gov 'turning off' GPS is moot.

not really. US government has offered its 'help' in developing the European
system ... and Europe has readily agreed ... *sic*

#m
--
<http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg>

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> The economic fallout would be huge.
>

Exactly. And what is the world ultimately run by? Money! So it won't
happen.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Moot? Hardly.
>

Again: When was the last time GPS was turned off? ONe example would be
enough.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

>>>squandering tens of billions of dollars of tax payers' money waging
>>>your daddy's war during a time when our nation's future citizens are
>>>being so poorly educated that it's embarrassing if not freighting.
>
> Yeah, look what it did for your spelling.

Hey -- maybe Larry really *meant* that he's "freighted"?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Actually, it doesn't even do that. There are what? Maybe 2 or 3 questions
> on the test that deal with VORs? Anybody who flunks 'cause they missed
> those is also missing a lot of other knowledge that they really should
> have.

VORs are just a single example of (what I consider) silly stuff on the
Private written exam. Name five more, and we could pare the test down by
20%.

Although, again -- I wonder if the new Sport Pilot hasn't already done most
of this? Has anyone seen the written exam for Sport Pilot?

Heck, I don't even know if there *is* a written exam for Sport Pilot...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> When was the last widespread GPS outage (when was the first, for that
> matter?)? Except local outages announced per NOTAM, since those don't
> really count.

I've been flying with GPS since ~1997, and I've not seen/heard of one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Upgrade the entire fleet, and I might be taking your side of the argument
> (actually, it would be moot {8^). But as long as VORs are actually in the
> aircraft (and I don't mean a fancy VOR-exploiting moving map RNAV type
> machine {8^), the pilots flying those should learn them.

I agree 100% that a pilot should learn to use EVERYTHING in the panel. But
does this specialized knowledge need to be tested on the Private written
exam? Are there questions about using audio panels on the Private written?
Intercoms? Auto pilots?

I guess that's really the crux of the issue. Should we be testing new
Private pilots to make sure they are safe fliers, or should we be testing
them to some level beyond that?

I would contend that in the year 2005 navigation via VORs rests squarely in
the "optional knowledge" category, and should not be on the Private written.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
> result in increased safety not numbers.

I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the
safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions.

> With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
> more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.

On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking
about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge. To fly, all you really need
is a sectional map and a compass -- and I know guys who fly safely without
*those*.

Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep
it exclusive? I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.

And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys?
Airport funding? We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every
14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse. We need more
pilots.

Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:10:37 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>::

>Larry,
>
>> What I suggested
>> has occurred recently and is likely to occur again.
>>
>
>When was the last widespread GPS outage (when was the first, for that
>matter?)?

For a GPS outage to be significant to an airman, it needn't be wide
spread.

There is some information at these links:
http://www.aerorfi.org/forum/read.php?f=1&i=115&t=115
http://www.schriever.af.mil/GpsSupportCenter/advisories.htm
http://www.sel.noaa.gov/nav/gps.html
http://www.schriever.af.mil/GpsSupportCenter/archive/Frontpage/2004_j006_SVN23_Anomaly.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/archive/2001/Oct/FinalReport-v4.6.pdf

>Except local outages announced per NOTAM, since those don't
>really count.

[Jay Honeck]

>>The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
>>because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take
>>the
>>test.
>
> I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.

That's just crap.

Walk into your airport today, Larry, with the eyes of a newbie. Try to
imagine knowing NOTHING about flying, and trying to get your foot in the
door. Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by standing
in your airport terminal building.

It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.

In fact, it's so intimidating that people don't even consider the fact that
they MIGHT be able to fly, let alone wonder who to speak with about it.
It's a terrible situation.

Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started. We've made airports so
inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of priesthood, where you
must be inducted into it by the Elders.

We're not Jedi Knights. While I love the thought that what I do is special,
and that I've got knowledge that very few others have, we've simply got to
get past this ego thing if general aviation is to survive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:40:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in
> <5vP7e.16612$xL4.10899@attbi_s72>::
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> As for getting rid of VOR training/testing, I think it's silly,
> and I don't even have a PPL!!! I know flight sims aren't 100%
> accurate but I have no trouble using VOR's in MSFS.

Using VORs is pretty stone simple. The discussion is what can be eliminated
from the Private written exam (or, if you want to bring it up, the Oral and
Flight portions, for that matter) to bring the test up to date, and to make
flying more accessible.

VORs are just a starting point in this conversation. There are at least
half a dozen other things that (IMHO) could be cut or minimized on the
written exam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:48:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote in
>> <PGA7e.14356$xL4.13659@attbi_s72>::
>>
>>>If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
>>>figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd
>>>suddenly
>>>awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is
>>>it
>>>doing on the written exam for Private Pilot?
>>
>> Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
>> the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
>> airborne (or a solar storm renders GPS unusable) and you find yourself
>> above an undercast? If the aircraft isn't equipped with ADF, and you
>> haven't been trained to use VOR navigation, you'd have to request a DF
>> steer from FSS, or if you're located in an area of ATC radar coverage,
>> vectors.
>
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:07:50 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote in
>::

>I think you just answered your own question, Larry.

In the Los Angeles area, pilots often fly over the vast Mojave Desert
enroute to their destinations. My experience has shown that ARTCC
radar coverage is limited below 8,000' over the Mojave, so radar
vectors may not be available. I have no idea of the coverage provided
by FSS for DF help.

>Them's the same
>actions I'd take if I was on top and the VOR went and packed up,

You wouldn't just fish your handheld GPS receiver out of your flight
bag, and continue on?

> so how is a GPS packing up any different?

If you are an airman trained in VOR navigation, you don't need to rely
on radar nor DF for backup navigation while finding your way with GPS.

[Grumman-581]

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
agonline.com...
> Upgrade the entire fleet, and I might be taking your side of the argument
> (actually, it would be moot {8^).

Actually, I believe that the FAA could probably upgrade every plane in the
US with a GPS for what it spends in yearly VOR maintenance and operation...

[Grumman-581]

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
> A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow airspeed
> that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.

Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...

[Lakeview Bill]

This is one of the things that really burned me up about the closing of
Meigs (KCGX - Chicago, IL)...

When I was a kid, my dad, who was a WWII fighter pilot, used to frequently
take me out to the old Raleigh (NC) Municipal Airport on Saturday and Sunday
afternoons.

We could walk up and down the flight line, talking to the pilots, and there
were a couple of mostly parted out planes over by one of the FBO's where
they would allow me to sit in the cockpit and dream my six-year-old dreams.

And the airplanes! None of today's wall-to-wall 172's and Warriors; if it
had ever flown, you could probably find on tied down at Raleigh Muni.

Now flash back to Meigs...

As a matter of hard-core practicality, Meigs generated revenue for the city.
Now, they are turning it into what is known as a "natural prairie" park,
which, with apologies to the tree-huggers amongst us, is nothing more than a
weed-covered vacant lot.

Of course, Chicago is faced with the same revenue shortfalls as is every
other city, so they've decided to scrape up a few bucks by leasing a part of
their "nature park" to Clear Channel, so they can stage rock concerts there.

But consider this: what if Mayor Daley had not destroyed Meigs?

What if he had spent (probably less than) $50,000 to put a few nice picnic
tables just outside the fence at Meigs so people could sit out there and
watch the planes taking off and landing? He could have even put up a few of
the overpriced concession stands that we have in all of the parks and
brought in a little more revenue.

And I imagine the mayor could have found one of his wealthy supporters to
donate a worn out 152 (or similar) that could be permanently set up over by
the picnic area. Cut the wings back to stubs (to save space), remove the
engine and install a dummy prop, remove the doors, and let the kids enjoy
the same fantasies I was able to do as a kid.

How many new pilots do you think would have come out of that?

And please don't label me a liberal do-gooder, but keep in mind that Meigs
was centrally located and very accessible to everyone in the city. How many
inner-city black and Hispanic kids do you think will ever see a light
airplane anywhere other than in the movies.

How many lights do you think would have been lit behind those little brown
eyes if they could still see and touch a real airplane at Meigs?

But Meigs is gone; probably forever. I have heard that the "Friends of
Meigs" have been pushing a plan to rebuild the airport, but for that to
happen, Daley would have to admit he screwed up (like the evidence isn't all
around those of us who live in Chicago), and that ain't about to happen.

So tonight, thousands of little heads will hit pillows in our city, with the
little kids dreaming their dreams of owning Glocks or Uzis, instead of
dreaming of owning a 172 or a Warrior.

And while they will have a park full of weeds to play in, somehow I don't
think we will be the better for all of this...






"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z888e.19937$GJ.13008@attbi_s71...
> >>The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
> >>because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take
> >>the
> >>test.
> >
> > I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.
>
> That's just crap.
>
> Walk into your airport today, Larry, with the eyes of a newbie. Try to
> imagine knowing NOTHING about flying, and trying to get your foot in the
> door. Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by
standing
> in your airport terminal building.
>
> It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
> airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.
>
> In fact, it's so intimidating that people don't even consider the fact
that
> they MIGHT be able to fly, let alone wonder who to speak with about it.
> It's a terrible situation.
>
> Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started. We've made airports
so
> inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of priesthood, where
you
> must be inducted into it by the Elders.
>
> We're not Jedi Knights. While I love the thought that what I do is
special,
> and that I've got knowledge that very few others have, we've simply got to
> get past this ego thing if general aviation is to survive.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:40:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > > wrote in
> > <5vP7e.16612$xL4.10899@attbi_s72>::
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Hilton]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
> > A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow
airspeed
> > that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.
>
> Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...

Yeah, but I don't think anyone was flying the AA1 in the 30s (see rest of
the thread).

Was the AA1 the one in the NASA video when the test pilot goes through all
the options, then pops the chute? That is a great video.

Hilton

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:09:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <z888e.19937$GJ.13008@attbi_s71>::

>>>The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
>>>because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take
>>>the
>>>test.
>>
>> I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.
>
>That's just crap.

It's difficult to argue with sagacious logic such as that. :-)

>Walk into your airport today, Larry, with the eyes of a newbie. Try to
>imagine knowing NOTHING about flying, and trying to get your foot in the
>door. Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by standing
>in your airport terminal building.

The terminal building at the airport from which I fly is strictly for
airline passengers; it has nothing to do with flight instruction.

If someone is passionate enough about flight, they find the way to a
certificate. If they are not passionate enough about flight or
intelligent enough to look for a flight school in the Yellow Pages, or
find the flight instruction too intimidating, they probably belong on
the ground.

>It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
>airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.

I have no idea what makes you say that. It certainly hasn't been my
experience. What do you find so intimidating?

>In fact, it's so intimidating that people don't even consider the fact that
>they MIGHT be able to fly, let alone wonder who to speak with about it.
>It's a terrible situation.

You'd have to provide some specific personal experiences that bolster
that argument before I'd buy it. Otherwise it smacks of a straw man
argument to me.

>Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started.

I believe it's safe to assume that _significantly_ less than 50% of
currently certificated airmen were mentored. Certainly, I had no
mentor other than my CFI. Where do you get these ideas?

>We've made airports so inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of
>priesthood, where you must be inducted into it by the Elders.

Commencing flight instruction is a matter of telephoning a flight
school, and making an appointment for an introductory flight. How
would you make it simpler?

While flight may be a "religious" experience, it certainly has nothing
to with metaphysics nor voodoo cults. Flight is all about physics,
mathematics, responsibility, judgment, and three dimensional reality,
not irrationality.

>We're not Jedi Knights.

Well, I happy to hear we got that cleared up. :-)

>While I love the thought that what I do is special,
>and that I've got knowledge that very few others have, we've simply got to
>get past this ego thing if general aviation is to survive.

General Aviation will survive despite what is done by you and me or
the government. You can't keep a good airman down. :-)

[Skywise]

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >,
> Skywise > wrote:
>
>> There are GPS jammers, but their effectiveness is disputed.
>
> by who?

Supposedly the Russians and supposedly some used against
US operations in Afghanistan.

>
>>
>> Due to the tight control of GPS by the US gov, the Europeans
>> are develping their own system called GALILEO which will use
>> the same base frequency (L1) as the NAVSTAR which means most
>> consumer level GPS units will be compatible. Once this is
>> available, the idea of the US Gov 'turning off' GPS is moot.
>
> Moot? Hardly. You think Galileo couldn't be jammed?

Sure it could. But it would take a lot of effort to jam
anything more than a localized region. It's not like someone
sitting in some secret bunker somewhere can fire up their
Acme GPS Super Jammer and knock out the whole affair.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Highflyer]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then
> recover underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is.
> Can you imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an
> intentional spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny
> brains....
>

Edgar Bergen was a cousin once removed. I feel like I am talking to a
member of the family!

Actually those pilots did indeed have a lot of courage, but certainly NOT
tiny brains. Just the opposite.

Remember, they did NOT have gyro instruments. While it is possible, if you
are EXTREMELY careful, to make in instrument letdown through an overcast
with only a magnetic compass, a steady foot, good trim and courage it is a
lot easier to put the airplane in a stable condition that will lose altitude
quickly. Most of those airplanes would pop out of a spin in a quarter turn
or less and lose no more than two or three hundred feet while doing it. A
spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin. Most
of those early airplanes would lose less than 400 feet per turn and the
airspeed would never get over about 90 mph while in a spin. An inadvertent
spiral is the most likely outcome from trying to fly instruments without any
and that will allow the airspeed to build up well over Vne. If you attempt
to jerk the airplane out of a high speed spiral when you see ground rapidly
approaching you will probably pull the wings off. Prompt recovery from a
spin will leave you wings level and only slightly faster than normal cruise
airspeed allowing you to find a field and put the darn thing down.

Compared to the available alternatives at the time, spinning through the
overcast was actually one of the safest options available and actually
pretty hard to mess up by sloppy piloting. :-)

Letting down with only a magnetic compass is a LOT trickier, albeit
possible. Do not practice this alone or in a real overcast! In the
northern hemisphere turn to a heading of 180 degrees. Trim the airplane for
best glide speed and adjust the throttle for a descent rate not to exceed
500 fpm with 300 probably somewhat safer. Remove you hands from the
controls and SIT ON THEM. :-) Carefully, using you feet, nudge the magnetic
compass back to the big "S" whenever it begins to stray out of the window.
Nudge it gently because it is wiggly as all get out. If your airspeed
remains constant, taken care of with the trim only, and you heading does not
change, you must be flying straight. If you fly straight and continue a
steady and reasonable descent you will descend in a straight course and
eventually wind up below the overcast with a controllable descent rate. Of
course, if the hilltops extend up into the clouds you may fly into something
hard and unyielding before you see the ground below you.

Both of these techniques do work. I can attest to that personally, because
if they had not, I wouldn't be writing this today. I do not recommend these
if you have gyros available. However, I have been trapped where I had to
make an "instrument" letdown or climbout when flying in an antique airplane
that had no electrical system and no gyros of any kind. Not fun, not real
safe, but certainly doable by a properly trained pilot.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

I always found it interesting that the FAA didn't certify airplanes that
were unsafe to spin until they decided that spins were unsafe to teach! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:y898e.18881$xL4.13426@attbi_s72...
> "Hilton" wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow
>> airspeed
>> that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.
>
> Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...
>
>

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by standing
> in your airport terminal building.

Terminal building? No terminal I ever saw had anything to do with flight
training. That's where you go to get on an airliner. Been that way as long as
I've been above ground.

> It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
> airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.

No around here. Here, the FBO sees dollar signs as soon as someone walks in the
door. They fall over their tongues to show you around.

> Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started. We've made airports so
> inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of priesthood, where you
> must be inducted into it by the Elders.

I don't know anyone who got started by a mentor. In fact, I see exactly the
opposite. At every social occassion I attend, I get introduced to several people
who have their certificate. Many (maybe most) have quit flying, usually because
of family considerations. It's just not that hard to get a certificate. What's
hard is to stay enthusiastic about sinking $5,000 or more each year into boring
holes in the air over New Jersey.

The thing that will kill GA is urban sprawl. It just isn't pretty looking down
at horizon-to-horizon condos. Especially if they're built on top of what used to
be a small airport. Even if the *do* name the complex "Airport Acres."

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> Terminal building? No terminal I ever saw had anything to do with flight
> training. That's where you go to get on an airliner. Been that way as long
as
> I've been above ground.

HKY (Hickory NC) has a really nice general aviation terminal. It is there
to serve people picking up a charter or business flight, and also serves a
the home of rentals and flight training.

I guess you are simply unaware of terminals of this type. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> HKY (Hickory NC) has a really nice general aviation terminal.

Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.

How about that! How recently?

Yes, FBO fits, but I think terminal also fits, don't you?

Had you been through a couple years ago, what they had then, was a far cry
from the facility they have now.

Delta is beginning regional jet service, starting in May. The main runway
is closed for paving, now. I hope they are able to make it a money making
success. This area could use some good commercial connections.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

FWIW, I agree with you. It is either intimidating or extremely
repelling for someone used to smooth, customer-oriented business
practices to walk into the average FBO. The likelyhood is high that
either the place looks run-down and ratty, or it is full of
testosterone-oozing young males full of themselves.

I have the feeling this is changing and the number of friendly,
customer-oriented schools is on the rise, but at many places, things
are not easy for a newcomer.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Highflyer wrote:

> A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin.

There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns,
so be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a
spin in IMC.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

Highflyer wrote:

> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then
>>recover underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is.
>>Can you imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an
>>intentional spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny
>>brains....
>>
>
>
> Edgar Bergen was a cousin once removed. I feel like I am talking to a
> member of the family!
>
> Actually those pilots did indeed have a lot of courage, but certainly NOT
> tiny brains. Just the opposite.
>
> Remember, they did NOT have gyro instruments. While it is possible, if you
> are EXTREMELY careful, to make in instrument letdown through an overcast
> with only a magnetic compass, a steady foot, good trim and courage it is a
> lot easier to put the airplane in a stable condition that will lose altitude
> quickly. Most of those airplanes would pop out of a spin in a quarter turn
> or less and lose no more than two or three hundred feet while doing it. A
> spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin. Most
> of those early airplanes would lose less than 400 feet per turn and the
> airspeed would never get over about 90 mph while in a spin. An inadvertent
> spiral is the most likely outcome from trying to fly instruments without any
> and that will allow the airspeed to build up well over Vne. If you attempt
> to jerk the airplane out of a high speed spiral when you see ground rapidly
> approaching you will probably pull the wings off. Prompt recovery from a
> spin will leave you wings level and only slightly faster than normal cruise
> airspeed allowing you to find a field and put the darn thing down.
>
> Compared to the available alternatives at the time, spinning through the
> overcast was actually one of the safest options available and actually
> pretty hard to mess up by sloppy piloting. :-)
>
> Letting down with only a magnetic compass is a LOT trickier, albeit
> possible. Do not practice this alone or in a real overcast! In the
> northern hemisphere turn to a heading of 180 degrees. Trim the airplane for
> best glide speed and adjust the throttle for a descent rate not to exceed
> 500 fpm with 300 probably somewhat safer. Remove you hands from the
> controls and SIT ON THEM. :-) Carefully, using you feet, nudge the magnetic
> compass back to the big "S" whenever it begins to stray out of the window.
> Nudge it gently because it is wiggly as all get out. If your airspeed
> remains constant, taken care of with the trim only, and you heading does not
> change, you must be flying straight. If you fly straight and continue a
> steady and reasonable descent you will descend in a straight course and
> eventually wind up below the overcast with a controllable descent rate. Of
> course, if the hilltops extend up into the clouds you may fly into something
> hard and unyielding before you see the ground below you.
>
> Both of these techniques do work. I can attest to that personally, because
> if they had not, I wouldn't be writing this today. I do not recommend these
> if you have gyros available. However, I have been trapped where I had to
> make an "instrument" letdown or climbout when flying in an antique airplane
> that had no electrical system and no gyros of any kind. Not fun, not real
> safe, but certainly doable by a properly trained pilot.

The latter doesn't work in rough air, whereas, a spining descent will.
So, as you say, the old-time pilots were actually using their brains
rather well in making a spinning descent through an impenetrable overcast.


Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I agree 100% that a pilot should learn to use EVERYTHING in the panel.
> But does this specialized knowledge need to be tested on the Private
> written
> exam? Are there questions about using audio panels on the Private
> written?
> Intercoms? Auto pilots?

If APs or Audio Panels were sufficiently standard, they might appear. VORs
are sufficiently standard.

The idea is to save expense and time, I'd think. Testing on a written is
cheaper for everyone involved than testing in the air (ie. a checkride).

[...]
> I would contend that in the year 2005 navigation via VORs rests squarely
> in the "optional knowledge" category, and should not be on the Private
> written.

Even when victor airways were "the" way to navigate, plenty still got by
with eyes, maps, and clocks. So, in theory, VORs have *always* been
optional. Apparently, that's not sufficient to keep them off.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Lakeview Bill wrote:

> So tonight, thousands of little heads will hit pillows in our city, with
> the little kids dreaming their dreams of owning Glocks or Uzis, instead of
> dreaming of owning a 172 or a Warrior.

More money for local police.

- Andrew

[Dan Girellini]

George Patterson > writes:

> Jay Honeck wrote:

>> It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
>> airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.
>
> No around here. Here, the FBO sees dollar signs as soon as someone walks in
> the door. They fall over their tongues to show you around.

I agree, at both FBOs (in NJ) I've trained at once you get in the door they're
very eager to tell anyone with that lost look about learning to fly.

>> Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started. We've made airports so
>> inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of priesthood, where you
>> must be inducted into it by the Elders.
>
> I don't know anyone who got started by a mentor.

I assume what Jay means is potential new pilots...ones that never even started
flight training. Like others, I'm sure, until my mid 20's it never even
occurred to me that I _could_ become a GA pilot. I don't think I'm alone in
this because I have talked to at least three people who are considering flight
training who never would have if I didn't tell them I was taking lessons (and
this is before I've taken anyone up for a ride). There are probably lots of
potential pilots we've lost this way.

I don't know if mentoring is the way to fix this or not, and the PP written is
probably way down on the list of things I'd change about GA, but....what were
we talking about again?

Dan.

--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

[Andrew Gideon]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really
> paying a big tax!!

No, they pay for a big *taxi* to carry all those cases of approach plates.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <8388e.18726$xL4.8356@attbi_s72>::

>> I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
>> result in increased safety not numbers.
>
>I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the
>safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions.

Perhaps GPS navigation would be an appropriate additional topic for
inclusion in the airman Private written examination. :-)

>> With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
>> more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.
>
>On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking
>about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge.

Where is the term "optional knowledge" defined? Is everything beyond
airspeed, compass and ball optional in your opinion? Where does the
boundary between 'optional' and 'essential' lie, in your opinion?

>To fly, all you really need is a sectional map and a compass -- and
>I know guys who fly safely without *those*.

Oh, like the Air Tractor pilot killed in the MAC with a military
training flight recently? :-)

Where do they do that? Certainly not over sprawling urban areas in
marginal visibility. It's beginning to sound like your frame of
reference is the sparely populated plains.

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations. The same is true of transition through KLAX Class B
airspace on the charted transition routes. VOR navigating is
required.

>Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep
>it exclusive?

In the '70s, Cessna, Piper and Beech tried the Country Club marketing
approach to flight instruction and aircraft rental. Their advertising
showed nattily attired upscale 30-something socializing at the FBO,
and generally attempted to shed the grease-stained hanger aspect of
aviation. Today you can see the results of that not insubstantial
effort: nil. It seems, that most folks interested in piloting
aircraft possess courage, desire, intelligence and means beyond the
norm. I have a hard time believing that Joe-sixpack will ever
dominate the ranks. Aviation isn't elitist by design; it's a natural
result of human nature. In its current state, aviation isn't for
everyone. Technology may change that, and when that occurs, easing
airman's testing requirements may be appropriate.

Today, dumbing-down the training criteria to attract the unqualified
seems like a step in the wrong direction destined to fail in an
unpleasant way. The NTSB has announced, that 2004 was general
aviation's safest year yet. I fail to see how eliminating material
from the airman's training curricula will positively impact aviation
safety.

>I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
>ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
>who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.

Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by
others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise?
A US President once said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Given the fact, that aviation is expected to double or tipple in the
not too distant future, I find a fear of dwindling ranks of airmen
suspicious if not unfounded.

>And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys?
>Airport funding?

If the number of active airmen fails to decline due to baby-boomers
failing medical requirements, and safety suffers as a result of
dumbing-down the airman's examination requirements, what do you think
will be the reaction of the regulators and the public? Your
suggestion could as easily backfire as succeed.

>We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every
>14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse.

The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
developers, not a dearth of pilots.

>We need more pilots.

Perhaps, but you have failed to convince me of that allegation, and I
oppose your approach to achieving it. If you want more pilots, you
need to reduce the cost of aviation, not compromise safety.

>Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

It will at least provide some tangible statistics.

[oicu812]

How much to "subscribe" to either NOAA or Jepp approach plates?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:44:11 GMT, (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

>Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>Who in the world uses VORs
>>for daily flight anymore?
>
>
>Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
>and produced at taxpayer expense.
>
>Ross Oliver
>Cheap ******* Aviator

[Andrew Gideon]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>>
>> Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.
>
> How about that! How recently?
>
> Yes, FBO fits, but I think terminal also fits, don't you?

I think that a terminal is something that an FBO might or might not have.

MacDan at CDW has tie-downs, a school, hangers...and a terminal. These are
distinct (with the school actually being in a completely different
building). And, of course, the school is relatively unadorned while the
FBO is seriously plush.

Oddly - in my opinion - the school is where you'd need to go for aviation
supplies. The terminal has a pilots' lounge, but if they need a chart they
need to visit the other building.

[I don't care for the coffee at either location, though, but at least it's
less often burned at the terminal <grin>.]

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
> KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
> regulations.

How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:3Uk8e.5463$ha3.4272@trndny02...
> Morgans wrote:
> >
> > HKY (Hickory NC) has a really nice general aviation terminal.
>
> Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.
>

Not according to their airport diagram!

[Klein]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:13:25 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Highflyer wrote:
>
>> A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin.
>
>There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns,
>so be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a
>spin in IMC.
>
>Stefan

Among such airplanes that won't stay in a spin is Highflyer's Stinson
Reliant. Well, I don't know for sure about his but I do know for sure
about my Reliant - after about three turns, it evolves into a spiral
dive - I've tried to hold it in a spin and failed.

Klein

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> How about that! How recently?

Summer, 1995.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:48:00 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in e.com>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
>> KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
>> regulations.
>
>How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
>class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?
>
> - Andrew


Yes. You are correct. I should have been more specific.

KLAX has a Special Flight Rules Corridor through the Class B airspace
at 3,500' and 4,500' that only requires squawking 1201 and . Part of
the requirements for use are tracking the SMO VOR 132 degree radial
and having a current VFR Terminal chart in the aircraft. The other
charted transition routs also require use of VOR radials. Although
the Shoreline transition does not; although charted, it has been
effectively rescinded.

So, yes, it is operating above the 10,000' ceiling of the KLAX Class B
airspace without tracking a radial is within regulations.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:I4E8e.9855$Fm5.2322@trndny09...
> Morgans wrote:
> >
> > How about that! How recently?
>
> Summer, 1995.

That was the old place. Not bad, but not great.

The new place is fantastic!
--
Jim in NC

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
> pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
> developers, not a dearth of pilots.
<Snipola>

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
>is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
>at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.

But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
currency with frequent flights.

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
>>is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
>>at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.
>
> I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
> airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.
>
> But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
> means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
> certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
> currency with frequent flights.

Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
basis to keep up the hours.

Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Highflyer]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Highflyer wrote:
>
>> A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin.
>
> There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns, so
> be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a spin
> in IMC.
>
> Stefan

That cannot happen if they remain in the spin. There are indeed some
aircraft, my current ride is one, that will not remain in a spin, even with
full prospin controls. Most of the aircraft being flown back in the
twenties and early thirties did not have that problem and would remain in a
spin quite nicely.

I will admit that my current ride was designed in 1936 and manufactured in
1942 for the Army Air Corps. Quite a few of the WWII aircraft did NOT have
real good spin characteristics.

Many aircraft designed and certified AFTER WWII were never spun even for
certification.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Klein" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:13:25 +0200, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>>Highflyer wrote:
>>
>>> A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin.
>>
>>There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns,
>>so be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a
>>spin in IMC.
>>
>>Stefan
>
> Among such airplanes that won't stay in a spin is Highflyer's Stinson
> Reliant. Well, I don't know for sure about his but I do know for sure
> about my Reliant - after about three turns, it evolves into a spiral
> dive - I've tried to hold it in a spin and failed.
>
> Klein
>

Klein,

To the best of my knowledge and the rumours I have heard from WWII Stinson
Reliant pilots ( mostly British ) no has ever been able to hold the Stinson
Reliant, at least the V77 model built as an AT19, into a spin for more than
three turns. When it was certified, after the war, as the V77 the FAA
required a placard on the dashboard saying "Intentional spins are
prohibited" :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

NOTE: The annual rec.aviation Pinckneyville Flyin is coming up May 20,21,
and 22. Email Mary now if you are planning to drop in at
so she can arrange groceries. If you are a vegetarian let her know some
food preferences. She is doing special meals for vegetarians and would LOVE
some input on what they would prefer to eat while we are munching down on
large chunks of slightly charred cow. :-)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Highflyer wrote:
> I will admit that my current ride was designed in 1936 and manufactured in
> 1942 for the Army Air Corps. Quite a few of the WWII aircraft did NOT have
> real good spin characteristics.


I'm new around here. What is your current ride?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jay Honeck]

>>I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
>>ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
>>who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.
>
> Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by
> others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise?

Yes and no -- but probably not for the reasons you suspect.

My fear of aviation dying is related to the hotel because I love the
aviation aspect of our inn, and I would hate to lose it.

However, if I lost every, single pilot who ever visits the hotel, our
business would drop -- at most -- 10%. Since we are currently up 52% over
last year -- which, itself was up 20% over 2003 -- losing all of our fly-in
guests would not harm us, businesswise.

Nevertheless, I would instantly sell the hotel if we were to ever lose our
fly-in guests. I have zero interest in running a regular hotel.

And I have even less interest in flying as an elite "sport", something to be
done only by the rich and daring. That's NOT what flying was meant to be in
America, and -- after watching what has happened to aviation in Europe
(thanks to outrageous taxation) -- I will do everything in my (very limited)
power to prevent that from happening here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

I'd definitely condense all the weather stuff into something more modern
and easier to remember!!! The weather stuff, with all its different
charts, meanings, lapse rates, etc, just make my head spin. It'll
probably be the hardest part of the oral.

John

[faky]

I will second the weather stuff. I use AOPA's weather for flight planning. I
have never seen, and will never see any of the arcane weather maps that the
FAA uses in their tests. These maps exist in only in the FSS which I as a
private citizen and pilot can't visit without a background check and several
day advanced arangments.
I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in FA,
TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary since
we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.


"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
> > > wrote in
> > >::
> >
> >>The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
> >>is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
> >>at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.
> >
> > I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
> > airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.
> >
> > But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
> > means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
> > certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
> > currency with frequent flights.
>
> Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
> school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
> basis to keep up the hours.
>
> Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Home of the Seismic FAQ
> http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Roger]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:05:26 GMT, "faky" > wrote:

>I will second the weather stuff. I use AOPA's weather for flight planning. I
>have never seen, and will never see any of the arcane weather maps that the
>FAA uses in their tests. These maps exist in only in the FSS which I as a
>private citizen and pilot can't visit without a background check and several
>day advanced arangments.
>I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in FA,
>TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary since
>we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.

That's something that could be easily remedied but getting change in a
government bureaucracy takes eons.
>
>
>"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
>> > > wrote in
>> > >::
>> >
>> >>The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
>> >>is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
>> >>at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.
>> >
>> > I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
>> > airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.
>> >
>> > But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
>> > means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
>> > certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
>> > currency with frequent flights.
>>
>> Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
>> school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
>> basis to keep up the hours.
>>
>> Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.

If you want it bad enough you'll do it!

First, before anything else you have to make your mind up that you are
going to become a pilot. Of course you have to have the health as
well and stay out of trouble.

Far too many just convince themselves it costs too much and they'll
never afford it, or they don't have enough to go all the way to a
license now so why bother? They'll wait until they can afford to do
the whole thing. There are many excuses for not flying *now*, but
most are just excuses. So what if you can only afford to take five or
10 lessons now? Do you want to do it or not? Sure it's cheaper in
the long run to do the whole thing at once and it takes fewer hours,
but it means you aren't flying at all.

When I was much younger I had enough money to start my training, but a
wife, two kids, and a new home in the country put a stop to that in
1963. I did fly three or four times in the intervening years, but it
was 1987 before I actually got back into flying. Then I had enough
saved up to take lessons and it only took about 6 months or a bit
less to earn my ticket and I did it while going to college full time
as well.

Yes, I know, the times don't add up until you realize I was 47 when I
quit work and went back to college full time. I earned a BS in
Computer Science with minors in Art and Math. Then started on my
Masters with a Graduate Assistantship.

If you think time is short, try fitting in flying while spending
nearly 8 hours at school and at least 8 more a day logged into the
school computer, or on your own, programming. as well as studying your
other classes.

Once you make your mind up, then develop a plan.
The main reason I didn't fly much during those intervening years was
the long drive to the airport, but if I'd had more drive (no pun
intended) I'd have done it.

So what if you can only afford to take a lesson once a month. Sure,
you aren't likely to solo at that rate, but you are learning and "you
are flying". Even if it's only once or twice a year to give yourself
a treat, you are "still flying".

Prior to quitting work to go to college full time I was carrying about
a half load at a two year college. I was taking courses that
interested me. When I went back full time I had 113 credit hours of
which only 17 counted. The point is, I had been learning and enjoying
the courses even if they didn't count. I went to college because I
wanted to do so, not because I had to.

As I said earlier, once you make your mind up that you are going to
learn to fly you are past the hardest of the hurdles. Sure, money and
time are issues for most of us, but making your mind up is number one!

Not enough money? Why? Can you remedy it? Certainly if you are
willing to commit yourself. It may take years to do so. Step number
one is get out of debt if you are in debt. Budget yourself and family
and organize time to minimize costs and trips. Job doesn't pay well?
Why not? Not enough education? Why not? Get the education and get
the job. Generally you have to expect to change locations when you
change jobs. As hard hit as the computer industry has been and with
so many out of work there are still jobs going begging and being
filled by "green cards" because the company couldn't find workers here
to take the jobs. Supporting a family and trying to make ends meet
with a low paying job? Start taking classes to qualify for a better
paying job.

There are more reasons people stay in low paying jobs than there are
reasons for those who don't fly .

It might take 20 years to get to the point of being able to take on
lessons with the expectation of flying regularly to finish up. It took
me 34! Still the occasional flight is worth it.

Flying does not have to be a rich person's sport and I would say that
half of the pilots at our airport are no more than average income with
some quite a bit less than average. Some fly ultra lights, some are
going for the new sport aviation license, some join clubs, and some
build their own.

The cost of staying Legally current doesn't have to be high, but again
it takes planning, imagination, and a bit of foresight.

I know one guy locally who built a nice little two seater who knew
when he started that he'd never be able to get a license due to his
health. He's out and around, but unable to even maintain a job, but
he built an airplane from plans and did a nice job too.

I was divorced in 80 and so far in debt I thought I'd never get out.
I met my current wife of over 20 years a year or two after that. Got
married, worked hard, saved, planned, and 5 years later went back to
college. Graduated, got a good job, put every cent I could to work,
worked seven years and retired. I'm not wealthy, but my wife and I
can do pretty much what we choose within reason.
(The 75 foot yacht is definitely out of the question)

>>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>> Brian
>> --
>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>> Home of the Seismic FAQ
>> http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>>
>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>

[Hilton]

faky wrote:
> I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in
FA,
> TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary
since
> we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.

I always get the raw format - I can look at a bunch of airports and within a
few seconds see where the good weather is, and where the bad weather is.

I love the raw format and proud to admit it. :)

Maybe it's just me, but I can read (from adds.aviationweather.gov):

KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250=

a whole lot faster than:


Forecast for: KSEA
Text: KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
Forecast period: 0600 to 1100 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the WSW (250 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 20000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 12000 feet AGL
broken clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
Forecast period: 1100 to 1300 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 6 MPH (5 knots; 2.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 600 feet AGL
scattered clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
Forecast period: 1300 to 1700 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 2.00 miles (3.22 km)
Ceiling: 600 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 600 feet AGL
Weather: BR (mist)

Text: FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
Forecast period: 1700 to 1900 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: variable direction winds at 5 MPH (4 knots; 2.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 1000 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250
Forecast period: 1900 UTC 21 April 2005 to 0600 UTC 22 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the NNW (340 degrees) at 7 MPH (6 knots; 3.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 25000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period


Don't try this at home with numerous airports...

Hilton

[Stefan]

Hilton wrote:

> Maybe it's just me, but I can read
....Metar code...
> a whole lot faster than:
....plain text

Me too. I think of it as an investment: You have to invest some work at
the beginning, but it will pay back with interests.

Stefan

[John T]

I have no problems reading the weather codes...its all the different
charts and things that I have a issue with. More than I will probably
ever use as a PP.
Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.


John

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:42:57 -0500, John T
> wrote in
>::

>Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.

I thought Hilton's argument* for their use was appropriate.


* See Message-ID:
et>

[Skywise]

Roger > wrote in
:

<Snipola of life story>

Well, I'm not going to write a big story about my life
but just say the not being out of work for 18 months
doesn't let one do much of anything.

BTW, I have zero debt. Nada. Zilch.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:
>
> Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.


Best reason in the world. Some people (you just replied to one) find it easier
to read than plain text.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Eric Paslick]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:zQY9e.13448$Fm5.7887@trndny09...
> John T wrote:
>>
>> Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.
>
>
> Best reason in the world. Some people (you just replied to one) find it
> easier to read than plain text.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

And some (in fact many) don't. Still, I'm not under the delusion that it's
ever going to change, so I keep practicing. ; )


--
Eric Paslick
PP-ASEL, A&P

------------------------------------------
"For real liturature can exist only when it's produced
By madmen, hermits, heretics,
Dreamers, rebels, sceptics -
And such a door of utterance has been given to me."
Christopher Murray Grieve (1892-1972)



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[GEG]

I would eliminate the cost.

[[email protected]]

I fly often with an older gentleman who, although a private pilot, has
some shortcomings. He can't seem to figure out cross-wind takeoffs
and/or landings.
I don't just refuse to fly with him, I take the time to gently try to
keep him in the air, where he belongs. There have been occasions where
I have taken the controls from him, again in such a manner as to help
him.
I have another friend who, when his son was killed in Viet Nam, tried
to commit suicide. He noted this on his subsequent medical and we all
know what happened next.
He can only fly when I will go with him and act as the pilot in
command. He is a marginal pilot, but he still gets to fly.

If one is not a pilot, and gets into an airplane with an incompetent
pilot; well, that person takes his/her chances.

If one is a pilot, and someone does a poor or no pre-flight, and then
flies in such a manner as to endanger one, and does/says nothing,
there is no reason to complain about it.

And please don't tell me that you are too intimidated to speak up or
take the controls if the pilot is misbehaving. Reading the posts on
this board convinces me you are all type A personalities who would
never meekly let someone kill them.



On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:41:44 -0700, Toño
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>> ...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
>> person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)
>
>Absolutely !! And the guy was a good friend too. After a rather heated
>discussion he ended up taking remedial training.
>
>We don't speak much anymore...but he's still alive and, more
>importantly, so am I ! ;-)
>
>
>Toño

[gatt]

> wrote in message

> Reading the posts on this board convinces me you are all type A
personalities who would
> never meekly let someone kill them.

Well, I'm decidedly type C.

There's people I won't take flying with me; I'd have no reservations balking
(politely) at a flight in which I wasn't comfortable with the pilot.

If a friend were flying and I thought they were doing something unsafe, I'd
find a constructive way to tell them my concern. If it may save their life,
it's no different than offering them a hand or throwing them a line if they
fell over the side of a boat. They're better off alive and hot then dead
and cold.

-c