Stupid Newbie Pattern Question

[Lakeview Bill]

When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?

If these are permissible, under what circumstances?

Thanks...

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Lakeview Bill" > said:
>When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
>pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>
>If these are permissible, under what circumstances?

Permissible, but not smart if there are other people in the pattern.

One of my local untowered airports has an ILS, so on a busy day with 5
people in the pattern, there is always one bozo doing straight ins (and
making radio calls that the guys in the pattern don't understand) and
disrupting everybody else.

Note to CFIIs: When doing practice approaches to a non-towered airport in
VFR conditions, don't allow you student to make radio calls giving their
position relative to the outer marker, or other IFR jargon. A lot of
private students and even pilots won't know what the heck you are talking
about.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I'd sooner volunteer to admin every Windows box at $ORKPLACE (and it's a
biiiig place) than think for one second that I could understand the thought
process of a teenage female. -- David P. Murphy

[Dave S]

Per the FAR's there is no requirement to fly a traffic pattern.

Per the AIM, there are recommendations for HOW to fly one if a pattern
is flown. You can enter and depart on any leg of a pattern if you choose
to fly it.

Dave

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:20:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Note to CFIIs: When doing practice approaches to a non-towered airport in
> VFR conditions, don't allow you student to make radio calls giving their
> position relative to the outer marker, or other IFR jargon. A lot of
> private students and even pilots won't know what the heck you are talking
> about.

I agree with this "somewhat" as you need to remember, the student needs to
learn the radio calls as well. So, any practice lessons with an IFR
student should include IFR jargon as you state in his radio calls.

With this in mind, I personally include VFR references in my approach into
Madison, MS (MBO). When I practice approaches, I will say:

Madison, Sundowner 12345L 5 miles NW, inbound VOR Alpha Madison. This
tells all pilots my position relative to the airport, as well as tell any
IFR traffic what my intentions are. If any pilot doesn't know where 5
miles NW is, then I would question their navigation abilities.

Allen

[john smith]

It is best to approach and overfly the airport at 500 feet above the
pattern altitude. This will allow you to observe the winds to select a
runway and watch for NORDO aircraft in the pattern or on the runway.

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
> pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:52:58 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> wrote:

>When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
>pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>
>If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
>
>Thanks...
Consistency is nice, but don't expect it of other people.

Also, some non-towered airports actually publish a mid-field crosswind
entry on their recommended noise-abatement charts. Halfmoon Bay (KHAF)
is one I know of.

Don

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly
> the
> pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>
> If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
>

The requirement is to make all turns to the left, nothing more.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>The requirement is to make all turns to the left, nothing more.

And then the AIM shows a pattern that includes a right turn (from the 45
to downwind). The FAA is consistent in its inconsistency.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"What we perceive as `God' is simply a by-product of our search for God."
- G'Kar.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> And then the AIM shows a pattern that includes a right turn (from the 45
> to downwind). The FAA is consistent in its inconsistency.
>

'Zackly.

[Matt Barrow]

"Lakeview Bill" > said:
>When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
>pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>
>If these are permissible, under what circumstances?

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf (Operations a Non-Towered
Airports, 14 pages)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Lakeview Bill]

That was an excellent article.

Thanks very much...


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "Lakeview Bill" > said:
> >When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly
the
> >pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
> >
> >If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf (Operations a Non-Towered
> Airports, 14 pages)
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

[BTIZ]

there are instances when that is not correct.. like when the local publish
in the AFD not to fly a pattern on that side for what ever reason and state
to use a right pattern to rwy xx

or when there are parallel runways and you should fly the approach to a
runway without crossing the non landing runway on base leg... that means
don't fly a left pattern and land on Runway 20R, because you crossed Rwy 20L
final course in the process

BT

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly
>> the
>> pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>>
>> If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
>>
>
> The requirement is to make all turns to the left, nothing more.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:QS9me.4927$fp.364@fed1read05...
>
> there are instances when that is not correct.. like when the local publish
> in the AFD not to fly a pattern on that side for what ever reason and
> state to use a right pattern to rwy xx
>
> or when there are parallel runways and you should fly the approach to a
> runway without crossing the non landing runway on base leg... that means
> don't fly a left pattern and land on Runway 20R, because you crossed Rwy
> 20L final course in the process
>

What you're trying to say is that there are locations where right traffic is
required. That is correct. At those locations the requirement is to make
all turns to the right, nothing more.

[Matt Barrow]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
> That was an excellent article.
>
> Thanks very much...

Another article along those lines is this one:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2000
Pelican's Perch #30:
The 45-Degree Zealots

There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern entries.
Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a small-but-vocal
cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who consider any other type
of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to be a felony.

------------------------------------------------------------------


>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Lakeview Bill" > said:
> > >When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly
> the
> > >pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
> > >
> > >If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf (Operations a Non-Towered
> > Airports, 14 pages)
> >

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Permissible, but not smart if there are other people in the pattern.
>

Correct, but probably not for the reason you're thinking.


>
> One of my local untowered airports has an ILS, so on a busy day with 5
> people in the pattern, there is always one bozo doing straight ins (and
> making radio calls that the guys in the pattern don't understand) and
> disrupting everybody else.
>

I thought so. The problem here is the guys in the pattern do not understand
that the "bozos" on final have the right-of-way.


>
> Note to CFIIs: When doing practice approaches to a non-towered airport in
> VFR conditions, don't allow you student to make radio calls giving their
> position relative to the outer marker, or other IFR jargon. A lot of
> private students and even pilots won't know what the heck you are talking
> about.
>

Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
Operating Control Towers" provides examples of self-announce phraseologies
for various situations. It provides the following for practice instrument
approaches:

"STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH FIX)
INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE
FIVE STRAWN"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> One of my local untowered airports has an ILS, so on a busy day with 5
>> people in the pattern, there is always one bozo doing straight ins (and
>> making radio calls that the guys in the pattern don't understand) and
>> disrupting everybody else.
>I thought so. The problem here is the guys in the pattern do not understand
>that the "bozos" on final have the right-of-way.

5 miles out on an ILS is not "on final". Final is a part of the pattern,
and unless you fly 5 mile patterns, that's not part of it.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
There's going to be no serious problem after this. --Ken Thompson

[Jay Honeck]

> Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
> Operating Control Towers" provides examples of self-announce phraseologies
> for various situations. It provides the following for practice instrument
> approaches:
>
> "STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH
> FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
> THREE FIVE STRAWN"

With apologies to the FAA, this is a perfect example of what NOT to say at a
non-towered, uncontrolled airfield.

Example: We have a VOR 36 approach into Iowa City. The VOR is located ~9
miles south of the field, and often-times you will hear "Cessna 123-Tango is
inbound from the VOR at 2500 feet on the VOR 36 approach, low approach
only..."

Primary students, transient pilots, and many VFR pilots have NO idea where
that puts our friend in 123-Tango. He may as well not have announced at
all.

More properly (and what I say when I'm practicing that approach) is "Iowa
City Traffic, Piper N56993 is nine miles south of the field, over the VOR,
inbound for landing on a practice VOR 36 approach..." with subsequent
position reports when I'm 5 miles out and again entering the pattern. (Space
permitting on the freq.)

This helps everyone concerned.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Question their navigation abilities or not, but these people are in the
pattern. Remember, there are student pilots and they don't know which
way anything is. Don't believe me? Do a google search on "landing
pattern computer" and look at the products. Someone is buying these
things.

I don't mean to be snobbish about it, either. When you're learning to
fly, there's a lot of cope with, and orienting onseself with an airport
traffic pattern is not immediately second nature.

That said, I tried making VFR-comprehensible position reports when I
was working on my instrument, and my CFII scolded me for it. He was
right at the time; I had enough work to do to fly the procedure
correctly. However, today, I usually do it anyway.

-- dave j

[A Lieberman]

On 29 May 2005 18:05:42 -0700, wrote:

> Question their navigation abilities or not, but these people are in the
> pattern. Remember, there are student pilots and they don't know which
> way anything is. Don't believe me? Do a google search on "landing
> pattern computer" and look at the products. Someone is buying these
> things.

Point well taken on student pilots Dave. Student pilots should get the
extra consideration for the learning curve. After all, we all have been
there. My original post only considered pilots, not students.

Even if the student does not know which way would be NW from the airport,
they still should have a conception of 5 miles out as I posted originally.

Even knowing that, the see and avoid on my part would be a little more
critical with the hopes that the student is correctly calling out his legs
on the pattern.

> That said, I tried making VFR-comprehensible position reports when I
> was working on my instrument, and my CFII scolded me for it. He was
> right at the time; I had enough work to do to fly the procedure
> correctly. However, today, I usually do it anyway.

Now, my CFI was the opposite. He had me do the call in my original post so
that everybody (students hopefully!) would know my position in relation to
the airport.

At MBO, there are no landmarks for the VOR Alpha approach to report other
then the VOR that's 5 miles out.

Allen

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 01:04:54 GMT, in rec.aviation.piloting you wrote:

> More properly (and what I say when I'm practicing that approach) is "Iowa
> City Traffic, Piper N56993 is nine miles south of the field, over the VOR,
> inbound for landing on a practice VOR 36 approach..." with subsequent
> position reports when I'm 5 miles out and again entering the pattern. (Space
> permitting on the freq.)

Jay,

Your VOR is considerably further then my VOR in MBO. As I posted to
another person, there are no landmarks between the VOR and my airport MBO.
The VOR is 5 miles from the airport.

By the time I cross the only major landmark (Interstate 55), I have already
made my call for the pattern entry, whether it be a 45 or crossing mid
field from the VOR.

So, needless to say, each airport will vary greatly.

Allen

[ls]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> When you are flying to a non-towered airport, do you always have to fly the
> pattern, or can you make a straight-in or crosswind approach?
>
> If these are permissible, under what circumstances?
>
> Thanks...
>

I remember my examiner advocating a crosswind entry on my (private)
checkride. He preferred it because of the visibility it gave of the
runway, pattern and departing traffic.

Otherwise, there are as many opinions on the supposedly correct way to
enter the pattern as there are pilots (and as others have said, you
don't have to fly a pattern at all if you don't want to).

My personal preference is the 45 deg entry or, if the pattern is on the
other side of the runway, crossing over midfield and joining the
downwind there.

I'll do straight-ins if I"m in a hurry (i.e. need to use the bathroom),
but prefer to fly a full pattern normally. But that's just what I'm used to.

LS
N646F

[Michael]

The "final" leg at uncontrolled airports is where most air-air
collisions and near misses occur. You have potentially converging
traffic at the same altitude banking, turning and doing GUMPs checks
all in a very confined space.My strong recommendation is to avoid
straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. it can be hard to see
the guy turning from base to final who is flying a normal pattern and
he is not too likely to see you. It may be legal to do straight
ins...but it isn't prudent.

[Cub Driver]

On 30 May 2005 19:03:08 -0700, "Michael" > wrote:

>My strong recommendation is to avoid
>straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. it can be hard to see
>the guy turning from base to final who is flying a normal pattern and
>he is not too likely to see you. It may be legal to do straight
>ins...but it isn't prudent.

I bought my handheld radio the day after I turned final to see myself
on collision course with a twin flying straight in at Hampton NH. (I
turned 90 degrees for a bit, then followed him in.)

I hadn't seen him, he hadn't seen me. Afterward he said: "Don't you
have a radio in that thing?" (It was a J-3 Cub.)

He was an instructor! He had a student flying the plane! It was his
first-ever visit to this grass field which is flagged "intensive
flight training"!

As you say: legal but not prudent. Indeed, I would call it stupid.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> 5 miles out on an ILS is not "on final". Final is a part of the pattern,
> and unless you fly 5 mile patterns, that's not part of it.
>

Well, there are those that do fly patterns with a five mile final. If
right-of-way is an issue, they have it. Be sure to yield to them.

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:
> The "final" leg at uncontrolled airports is where most air-air
> collisions and near misses occur. You have potentially converging
> traffic at the same altitude banking, turning and doing GUMPs checks
> all in a very confined space.My strong recommendation is to avoid
> straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. it can be hard to see
> the guy turning from base to final who is flying a normal pattern and
> he is not too likely to see you. It may be legal to do straight
> ins...but it isn't prudent.
>

Actually, I think you'll find that nearly all of those accidents involve
either two aircraft on final who had flow the traffic pattern or
involved an aircraft rolling out or departing on the ground.

It's rare that there is a straight-in involved because most people DO
fly the patterns. Your comments about people being distracted and
fixated on the threshold is well take though.

[Ron Natalie]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
> I bought my handheld radio the day after I turned final to see myself
> on collision course with a twin flying straight in at Hampton NH. (I
> turned 90 degrees for a bit, then followed him in.)
>
I'm confused. He was flying to the reciprocal runway? If you turned
final and were on a collision course with a straight in for the same
runway sounds like you were at fault.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> 5 miles out on an ILS is not "on final". Final is a part of the pattern,
>> and unless you fly 5 mile patterns, that's not part of it.
>
> Well, there are those that do fly patterns with a five mile final. If
> right-of-way is an issue, they have it. Be sure to yield to them.

To reinforce this point:

If a pilot has a question about right-of-way with an airplane on a five-mile
final, then that pilot is flying a similarly "extended" pattern. If you're
in a position where you *might* need to yield to an airplane on a five-mile
final, then that airplane does have the right-of-way.

Conversely, if you're flying a normal pattern, turning base 1/2 mile or so
from the runway end, an airplane five miles out just isn't an issue at all.
They'd have right-of-way if you were in their way, but you're not so their
right-of-way is irrelevant.

And yes, contrary to the example given, even a pilot on an IFR flight plan,
once they are communicating on the CTAF they really ought to use landmarks
and position reports that VFR traffic in the pattern will recognize.
"Five-mile final runway 18", for example.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:WEtme.19232$IC6.15139@attbi_s72...
>
> With apologies to the FAA, this is a perfect example of what NOT to say at
> a non-towered, uncontrolled airfield.
>
> Example: We have a VOR 36 approach into Iowa City. The VOR is located ~9
> miles south of the field, and often-times you will hear "Cessna 123-Tango
> is inbound from the VOR at 2500 feet on the VOR 36 approach, low approach
> only..."
>
> Primary students, transient pilots, and many VFR pilots have NO idea where
> that puts our friend in 123-Tango. He may as well not have announced at
> all.
>

Well, Jay, based just on your description, without looking at any charts of
the area, I'd say that announcement puts our friend in Cessna 123T something
less than nine miles south of the field at 2500 MSL heading directly for the
runway 36 threshold. Why do you believe others can't draw that same
conclusion?

Personally, I prefer to hear reports over a known fix or landmark or a DME
distance. That way I know it's an accurate report and not a
semi-wild-ass-guess. I think you'd be surprised how inaccurate some reports
are.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T10E3223B


>
> More properly (and what I say when I'm practicing that approach) is "Iowa
> City Traffic, Piper N56993 is nine miles south of the field, over the VOR,
> inbound for landing on a practice VOR 36 approach..." with subsequent
> position reports when I'm 5 miles out and again entering the pattern.
> (Space permitting on the freq.)
>
> This helps everyone concerned.
>

I think you're talkin' too much. There's no need to say you're over the VOR
and also say that you're nine miles south of the field. The VOR's on the
charts, transient pilots will know where it is and local pilots are familiar
with it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with this "somewhat" as you need to remember, the student needs to
> learn the radio calls as well. So, any practice lessons with an IFR
> student should include IFR jargon as you state in his radio calls.
>
> With this in mind, I personally include VFR references in my approach into
> Madison, MS (MBO). When I practice approaches, I will say:
>
> Madison, Sundowner 12345L 5 miles NW, inbound VOR Alpha Madison. This
> tells all pilots my position relative to the airport, as well as tell any
> IFR traffic what my intentions are. If any pilot doesn't know where 5
> miles NW is, then I would question their navigation abilities.
>

I question the ability of many pilots to estimate distance. One pilot's 5
mile report is another pilot's 10 mile report. I'll trust a position over a
charted fix or landmark or a DME distance, anything else I assume to be a
SWAG.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Question their navigation abilities or not, but these people are in the
> pattern. Remember, there are student pilots and they don't know which
> way anything is. Don't believe me? Do a google search on "landing
> pattern computer" and look at the products. Someone is buying these
> things.
>

If they don't know which way anything is they shouldn't be in the pattern
solo.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Point well taken on student pilots Dave. Student pilots should get the
> extra consideration for the learning curve. After all, we all have been
> there. My original post only considered pilots, not students.
>
> Even if the student does not know which way would be NW from the airport,
> they still should have a conception of 5 miles out as I posted originally.
>

A student pilot that doesn't know which way NW is not ready to solo.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The "final" leg at uncontrolled airports is where most air-air
> collisions and near misses occur.
>

What is your evidence of that?


>
> You have potentially converging
> traffic at the same altitude banking, turning and doing GUMPs checks
> all in a very confined space.My strong recommendation is to avoid
> straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. it can be hard to see
> the guy turning from base to final who is flying a normal pattern and
> he is not too likely to see you.
>

Why can it be hard to see the guy turning from base to final who is flying a
normal pattern and why is he not too likely to see you?


>
> It may be legal to do straight ins...but it isn't prudent.
>

Why not? What's the difference between a five-mile final on a straight-in
approach and a five-mile final out of a full pattern if others in the
pattern aren't looking for traffic to the outside?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bought my handheld radio the day after I turned final to see myself
> on collision course with a twin flying straight in at Hampton NH. (I
> turned 90 degrees for a bit, then followed him in.)
>
> I hadn't seen him, he hadn't seen me. Afterward he said: "Don't you
> have a radio in that thing?" (It was a J-3 Cub.)
>
> He was an instructor! He had a student flying the plane! It was his
> first-ever visit to this grass field which is flagged "intensive
> flight training"!
>
> As you say: legal but not prudent. Indeed, I would call it stupid.
>

Which of you made the most errors?

[Jay Honeck]

> > With this in mind, I personally include VFR references in my approach into
> > Madison, MS (MBO). When I practice approaches, I will say:
> >
> > Madison, Sundowner 12345L 5 miles NW, inbound VOR Alpha Madison. This
> > tells all pilots my position relative to the airport, as well as tell any
> > IFR traffic what my intentions are. If any pilot doesn't know where 5
> > miles NW is, then I would question their navigation abilities.
> >
>
> I question the ability of many pilots to estimate distance. One pilot's 5
> mile report is another pilot's 10 mile report.

In the pre-GPS days, this was absolutely true. Nowadays, however, we
must contend with the other end of the spectrum -- you know, the guy
who reports his distance from the airport accurate to three decimal
places...

Estimation is no longer required. Rounding is encouraged.

;-)

Now DIRECTION from the airport is another thing entirely. Just looking
at your distance readout doesn't tell you your position relative to the
airport, and this is where a lot of guys screw up, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In the pre-GPS days, this was absolutely true. Nowadays, however, we
> must contend with the other end of the spectrum -- you know, the guy
> who reports his distance from the airport accurate to three decimal
> places...
>

When someone reports "X miles northwest" you don't know if the distance is a
SWAG or derived from GPS so it's still suspect.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "A Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I agree with this "somewhat" as you need to remember, the student needs to
>>learn the radio calls as well. So, any practice lessons with an IFR
>>student should include IFR jargon as you state in his radio calls.
>>
>>With this in mind, I personally include VFR references in my approach into
>>Madison, MS (MBO). When I practice approaches, I will say:
>>
>>Madison, Sundowner 12345L 5 miles NW, inbound VOR Alpha Madison. This
>>tells all pilots my position relative to the airport, as well as tell any
>>IFR traffic what my intentions are. If any pilot doesn't know where 5
>>miles NW is, then I would question their navigation abilities.
>>
>
>
> I question the ability of many pilots to estimate distance. One pilot's 5
> mile report is another pilot's 10 mile report. I'll trust a position over a
> charted fix or landmark or a DME distance, anything else I assume to be a
> SWAG.

Yes, I often make a guess before checking the GPS when I see an airport
and I find it hard to be within even 20% in many cases. The altitude
you are are, the terrain around the airport, etc. all seen to contribute
to estimation error.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Now DIRECTION from the airport is another thing entirely. Just looking
> at your distance readout doesn't tell you your position relative to the
> airport, and this is where a lot of guys screw up, IMHO.

Yep, and a lot of pilots round off the compass directions entirely too much.
They seem to know only the cardinal directions -- anything from 315 degrees to
45 degrees is "north", for example.

There's a controller who worked Norfolk approach a few years ago who's really
picky about that sort of thing. If you're in a position to listen to him, you
can hear him put on a sour tone when someone reports his position as north of
the airport and radar shows him to be NNE. Said pilot will be corrected. You can
also hear the note of astonishment when someone reports a position of SSE and
radar shows him to actually be there.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[mike regish]

Which tells non-IFR pilots almost nothing.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:H8ome.9858

>
> "STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH
> FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
> THREE FIVE STRAWN"
>

[mike regish]

If you do these, just make sure there isn't a little parachute next to the
airport symbol on the sectional. If there is, and there could be jump
activity, you should fly just on the actual track of the pattern. Never
cross the field-at any altitude.

mike

"ls" > wrote in message
...

if the pattern is on the
> other side of the runway, crossing over midfield and joining the downwind
> there.
>
> LS
> N646F
>

[mike regish]

Can you show me the reg which specifies that the pattern can be five miles
from the airport?

And if some guy is at pattern altitude five miles from the airport, I hope
his engine doesn't quit.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:DFZme.11120>>
>
> Well, there are those that do fly patterns with a five mile final. If
> right-of-way is an issue, they have it. Be sure to yield to them.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which tells non-IFR pilots almost nothing.
>

That depends what the FAF is. If it's a VOR it tells them exactly where the
aircraft is.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can you show me the reg which specifies that the pattern can be five miles
> from the airport?
>

There is no regulation that specifies pattern dimensions.


>
> And if some guy is at pattern altitude five miles from the airport, I hope
> his engine doesn't quit.
>

Aircraft that turn final five miles from the runway tend to have more than
one engine.

[George Patterson]

mike regish wrote:
> Can you show me the reg which specifies that the pattern can be five miles
> from the airport?

Can you show me a reg that says it can't?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Which tells non-IFR pilots almost nothing.
>
> That depends what the FAF is. If it's a VOR it tells them exactly where the
> aircraft is.

No it doesn't, because VFR pilots are unlikely to know the FAF is at the VOR.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 02:34:28 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

> No it doesn't, because VFR pilots are unlikely to know the FAF is at the VOR.

George,

It's not the need to know the FAF, but knowing where the plane is. A VFR
pilot "should" know where the VOR is in relationship to his home airport.
I stress home airport as that pilot should be familiar with his home
territory.

Now, it probably wouldn't tell a VFR pilot beans if he is at an airport he
doesn't frequent, so reporting direction from airport vs VOR to me would be
more appropriate.

For example, at my airport, the JAN VOR is 5 miles northwest of the
airport. If I said, Madison, 43L over the VOR inbound for landing, that
probably would mean squat to you. If I said, Madison 43L 5 miles NW,
inbound for landing, that would give you a clear position report.

So, when I practice approaches, as I stated in my original posting, I say:

Madison, Sundowner 12345L 5 miles NW, inbound VOR Alpha Madison.

This, I would hope covers all bases for both transient and local VFR
traffic. VFR traffic, again may not know beans about VOR Alpha, but they
should know where 5 miles NW should be in relation to their position.

As pointed out a little later in my thread about this, student pilots
should be given a little extra consideration as they are truly trying to
learn how to fly the plane. Information is already saturating them, and we
as pilots need to consider that, as we need to remember, we were there once
ourselves.

Allen

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:pAOoe.823$2H2.634@trndny08...
> mike regish wrote:
> > Can you show me the reg which specifies that the pattern can be five
miles
> > from the airport?

Not specifically...

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189177-1.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:UCOoe.825$2H2.464@trndny08...
>
> No it doesn't, because VFR pilots are unlikely to know the FAF is at the
> VOR.
>

Yes it does, because the example calls for the name of the FAF to be used.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not the need to know the FAF, but knowing where the plane is. A VFR
> pilot "should" know where the VOR is in relationship to his home airport.
> I stress home airport as that pilot should be familiar with his home
> territory.
>
> Now, it probably wouldn't tell a VFR pilot beans if he is at an airport he
> doesn't frequent, so reporting direction from airport vs VOR to me would
> be more appropriate.
>

Why wouldn't a transient pilot know where the VOR is? It's on the charts.


>
> For example, at my airport, the JAN VOR is 5 miles northwest of the
> airport. If I said, Madison, 43L over the VOR inbound for landing, that
> probably would mean squat to you. If I said, Madison 43L 5 miles NW,
> inbound for landing, that would give you a clear position report.
>

If you said "over Jackson VOR" I'd know exactly where you were. If you said
"five miles northwest of Campbell" I'd know you believed you were about five
miles northwest of Campbell, but I'd understand your actual distance from
the field could be significantly different and that you may actually be WNW
or NNW of the field.

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:03:09 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Why wouldn't a transient pilot know where the VOR is? It's on the charts.

Note, the following is my "observation", no statistical value....

I have noticed that VFR pilots do not use VOR's in their flight planning
BEYOND their destination.

If you would come in from the east side of the compass rose, and not "look
ahead" in your flight planning, you may not take notice that there is a VOR
out there.

Most VFR pilots, again, my opinion look for land references that they fly
over, and not beyond their destination. If you look on the sectional, one
huge land mark that overpowers any VOR is the reservoir. The transient
pilot will be focused on the reservoir and the airport position in
relationship to the reservoir, not the VOR.

So, most likely, the TRANSIENT VFR pilot won't pay any attention to what is
beyond his destination and won't realize there is a VOR NW of MBO.

May not be wise, but it is human nature. So, to report your position that
you are over the VOR MAY be useless to most transient VFR pilots (not all,
but most).

> If you said "over Jackson VOR" I'd know exactly where you were. If you said
> "five miles northwest of Campbell" I'd know you believed you were about five
> miles northwest of Campbell, but I'd understand your actual distance from
> the field could be significantly different and that you may actually be WNW
> or NNW of the field.

Whether you were WNW or NNW truely wouldn't make too much difference as you
most likely won't see me anyway in the haze or the "ground clutter". The
important thing would be the general direction and distance. Since the VOR
is a "measured distance", I'd say the actual distance would not be
different then MY own perception. Now, using landmarks, yes I would agree
with your assessment above. Distance can be misleading.

Allen

[Jay Honeck]

> So, most likely, the TRANSIENT VFR pilot won't pay any attention to what
> is
> beyond his destination and won't realize there is a VOR NW of MBO.

It goes well beyond that. VFR pilots fly GPS direct, which totally
eliminates the use of VORs for navigation. (I turn my VORs on, once in a
while, just to see if they still work.)

In flight planning, I really couldn't care less where the VORs are, any more
than I would want to know where the NDBs, A/N radio ranges, or light beacons
used to be. They have *all* been supplanted by GPS in the VFR world, and
the IFR world is slowly (glacially?) catching up to the technology.

Thus, a position report of "X mile south of the VOR on the 134 radial" is
not going to tell a transient VFR pilot much, without digging out the
sectional chart -- not likely to happen while in the pattern to land. It
*will* help me visualize your location at my home airport, but only because
I learned to fly "in the olden days" before GPS...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maule Driver]

What Jay said.

But I know the locals will know where the VOR is.

Problem is, the locals will also report their position relative to "the
tanks" or "the bridge", or "5 corners" or other such nonsense for
transients. Even ATC does it at some 'ports.

Try to play to both audiences?

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> It goes well beyond that. VFR pilots fly GPS direct, which totally
> eliminates the use of VORs for navigation. (I turn my VORs on, once in a
> while, just to see if they still work.)
>
> In flight planning, I really couldn't care less where the VORs are, any more
> than I would want to know where the NDBs, A/N radio ranges, or light beacons
> used to be. They have *all* been supplanted by GPS in the VFR world, and
> the IFR world is slowly (glacially?) catching up to the technology.

[Peter Duniho]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> What Jay said.

What Jay said is just a demonstration of how inappropriate use of GPS
navigation is creating pilots who don't have a clue of where they actually
are relative to the world.

The fact that you are using a GPS to get from Point A to Point B is no
justification for not knowing what is between Point A and Point B, or in the
general vicinity of Point A and Point B.

If there is a VOR close enough to an airport to be usable as a reference for
traffic reports, then any pilot operating at or near that airport has an
obligation to be aware of the VOR and its position, whether or not they are
using the VOR for navigation.

<rant on>
I realize that it's human nature, and perhaps even a bit fashionable, to be
clueless with respect to your surroundings. Not just in aviation, but in
all aspects of life, people seem to want to forget that they are a part of a
living, breathing world. They want to abstract their existence as much as
possible, and forget about reality. But every time they do so, they
sacrifice true awareness and an ability to interact with reality, because
they are ignoring reality. Unfortunately for those people, reality doesn't
care about abstractions; it exists, regardless of whether you pay attention
to it or not. If you fail to pay attention to it, you will pay the price.
</rant>

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> > What Jay said.
>
> What Jay said is just a demonstration of how inappropriate use of GPS
> navigation is creating pilots who don't have a clue of where they actually
> are relative to the world.

I swear, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt that you have
actually piloted an aircraft in the last 10 years.

GPS has changed *everything* about flying -- and clinging to the old
VOR system is just another example of calcified thinking.

I have no doubt that 50 years ago some felt the same way about those
pilots who didn't "have a clue" where the A/N radio ranges were, and
nowadays (every now and then) I hear old timers grumbling about the
loss of our NDB approach into Iowa City. Time doesn't stand still, and
many people long for the familiarity of what they know best -- but
pilots are supposed to be lighter on their feet than the average Joe on
the street.

Change can be difficult to accept, and the elderly often find it easier
to just sit back and feign superiority...but I didn't think you were
*that* old, Pete.

> If there is a VOR close enough to an airport to be usable as a reference for
> traffic reports, then any pilot operating at or near that airport has an
> obligation to be aware of the VOR and its position, whether or not they are
> using the VOR for navigation.

Have you done a cross country flight lately, Pete? I don't mean to
Spokane -- I mean CROSS COUNTRY. If so, you would know how ludicrous
your statement truly is.

If not, you really aren't qualified to comment.

We are about to embark on a cross-continent cross-country flight. If
at any point in the next three days I turn on my VORs, it will be
because I am bored, and we will have listened to all our music CDs.

Stupidly, I might attempt to use my 1950s-tech dual VORs to
"cross-check" my dual GPS-verified position, even though I know that
they are exponentially less accurate instruments.

THAT is the reality of VORs to the modern pilot, Pete. Welcome to the
real world. You should have taken the Blue Pill.

> <rant on>
> I realize that it's human nature, and perhaps even a bit fashionable, to be
> clueless with respect to your surroundings. Not just in aviation, but in
> all aspects of life, people seem to want to forget that they are a part of a
> living, breathing world. They want to abstract their existence as much as
> possible, and forget about reality. But every time they do so, they
> sacrifice true awareness and an ability to interact with reality, because
> they are ignoring reality. Unfortunately for those people, reality doesn't
> care about abstractions; it exists, regardless of whether you pay attention
> to it or not. If you fail to pay attention to it, you will pay the price.
> </rant>

Wow. That's deep.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

Peter does seem to overreach a bit. A GPS that has any sort of
navigational screen such as a moving map or "nearest fix", then one
can easily determine one's position relative to a VOR or airport, in
order to yak with ATC on common terms. There are not many GPS units
that don't have that information within a button or two away. These
enhance situational awareness (as compared with VOR), not reduce it.

I hope Jay's GPS-philia doesn't also mean a strong habit for
"direct-to" rather than airway routing. Even flying VFR, I like
sticking to airways because they are generally routed away from
parachuting / training areas, MOAs, dinky little airports,
non-physical obstructions like blasting areas. They require a little
less in-depth map-reading to stay safe.


- FChE

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> GPS has changed *everything* about flying -- and clinging to the old
> VOR system is just another example of calcified thinking.

There's a difference between "clinging" to it, and "using" it, and
"knowing that it's there". I have a Garmin 195 AND a VOR AND an open
sectional (or now that I'm instrument rated, a low level airways chart)
in my plane at all times.

> Have you done a cross country flight lately, Pete? I don't mean to
> Spokane -- I mean CROSS COUNTRY. If so, you would know how ludicrous
> your statement truly is.

Well, I have - I've been from MA to FL a few times, to WI a few times,
and to CO once. I think that qualifies - all of that in the last two
years, along with numerous flights from MA to VA, or MA to NJ over a
route I know VERY well, and can fly blindfolded.

> If not, you really aren't qualified to comment.

So given that criteria, I am qualified to comment.

> Stupidly, I might attempt to use my 1950s-tech dual VORs to
> "cross-check" my dual GPS-verified position, even though I know that
> they are exponentially less accurate instruments.

You are correct - they are much less accurate, wander all over the
freaking place, and have no range. But, they're there, and if the GPS
gives up the ghost, the VOR's will be a decent cross check. I (not
stupidly) check the VOR's as I fly by them, just to verify what my GPS
and eyeballs/map are telling me - if I ever see a discrepancy, I'll have
to spend more than the 10 seconds that takes every ten minutes or so
figuring out why.

> THAT is the reality of VORs to the modern pilot, Pete. Welcome to the
> real world. You should have taken the Blue Pill.

There are many valid "real worlds". I've been flying since 1974. I
LOVE my GPS, and would hate to fly without it. But I ALWAYS have an
open map, cross check against the map using my eyeballs every couple of
minutes, and also cross check with the VOR on occasion. If I had an ADF
in the plane for some reason, I'd cross check with that, too.....

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> > <rant on>
> > I realize that it's human nature, and perhaps even a bit fashionable, to
be
> > clueless with respect to your surroundings. Not just in aviation, but
in
> > all aspects of life, people seem to want to forget that they are a part
of a
> > living, breathing world. They want to abstract their existence as much
as
> > possible, and forget about reality. But every time they do so, they
> > sacrifice true awareness and an ability to interact with reality,
because
> > they are ignoring reality. Unfortunately for those people, reality
doesn't
> > care about abstractions; it exists, regardless of whether you pay
attention
> > to it or not. If you fail to pay attention to it, you will pay the
price.
> > </rant>
>
> Wow. That's deep.

Deep ****!

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I swear, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt that you have
> actually piloted an aircraft in the last 10 years.
>
> GPS has changed *everything* about flying -- and clinging to the old
> VOR system is just another example of calcified thinking.

I swear, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt that you have actually
READ a post in the last 10 years.

Once again, you have demonstrated your amazing ability to both miss the
point and be insulting all at the same time.

Where in my post did I say anything about USING a VOR? My point is that
even those of you who use GPS as your primary navigation have a
responsibility to be aware of any VOR that is near enough to your route to
be relevant to your operation along that route.

The same thing is true of any landmark. The question of whether flying by
VORs is antiquated or not is irrelevant, as is the question of how you
personally are navigating. All that matters is that it's a major landmark
that can easily be expected to be referenced by any number of other pilots
operating in the same airspace as you.

It seems like people who are flying with GPSs assume that the rest of the
world just disappears, and all they need to care about is the waypoints they
enter in their GPS. That's just not true.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:03:09 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > Why wouldn't a transient pilot know where the VOR is? It's on the
charts.
>
> Note, the following is my "observation", no statistical value....
>
> I have noticed that VFR pilots do not use VOR's in their flight planning
> BEYOND their destination.
>
> If you would come in from the east side of the compass rose, and not "look
> ahead" in your flight planning, you may not take notice that there is a
VOR
> out there.
>
> Most VFR pilots, again, my opinion look for land references that they fly
> over, and not beyond their destination. If you look on the sectional, one
> huge land mark that overpowers any VOR is the reservoir. The transient
> pilot will be focused on the reservoir and the airport position in
> relationship to the reservoir, not the VOR.
>
> So, most likely, the TRANSIENT VFR pilot won't pay any attention to what
is
> beyond his destination and won't realize there is a VOR NW of MBO.
>
> May not be wise, but it is human nature. So, to report your position that
> you are over the VOR MAY be useless to most transient VFR pilots (not all,
> but most).

Unless I am about to run into a VOR I could care less where they are and if
I am close to an airport and need to be looking out the window I am not
about to look at the sectional to try to locate one.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I swear, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt that you have
> actually piloted an aircraft in the last 10 years.

You are completely oblivious to everything he said. To put it bluntly, it
doesn't matter one whit if you don't even have a NAV unit in the plane. What
Peter said is that THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING WHERE THE VORS ARE.

Did that get across at all?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Ben Hallert]

> Stupidly, I might attempt to use my 1950s-tech dual VORs to
> "cross-check" my dual GPS-verified position, even though I know that
> they are exponentially less accurate instruments.

Umm... I think he's saying that you've got a responsibillity to know
where the VORs are, even if you don't use 'em. I remember reading that
there is a statistical spike in mid-airs over VORs (because lots of
people use them as intersections), and I imagine that driving across a
victor airway without know that it's a high traffic corridor is kinda
counterindicated. I always keep a vigillant scan, but... I'll use any
data I have to keep 'big sky theory' in check.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Note, the following is my "observation", no statistical value....
>
> I have noticed that VFR pilots do not use VOR's in their flight planning
> BEYOND their destination.
>
> If you would come in from the east side of the compass rose, and not "look
> ahead" in your flight planning, you may not take notice that there is a
> VOR out there.
>
> Most VFR pilots, again, my opinion look for land references that they fly
> over, and not beyond their destination. If you look on the sectional, one
> huge land mark that overpowers any VOR is the reservoir. The transient
> pilot will be focused on the reservoir and the airport position in
> relationship to the reservoir, not the VOR.
>
> So, most likely, the TRANSIENT VFR pilot won't pay any attention to what
> is beyond his destination and won't realize there is a VOR NW of MBO.
>
> May not be wise, but it is human nature. So, to report your position that
> you are over the VOR MAY be useless to most transient VFR pilots (not all,
> but most).
>

I don't think that follows at all. Even if you're right that most VFR
pilots don't look beyond their destination in planning their flights, that
doesn't prevent them from looking at their charts while in flight. If
they're approaching Campbell from the east and another aircraft calls
"Campbell traffic, Skylane 1234A over Jackson VORTAC inbound on VOR-A
approach, landing runway 35 Campbell" they should be able to quickly find
the VOR on their charts.


>
> Whether you were WNW or NNW truely wouldn't make too much difference as
> you most likely won't see me anyway in the haze or the "ground clutter".
>

The difference is 45 degrees. The more accurate your report the more likely
I am to see you everything else being equal.


>
> The important thing would be the general direction and distance. Since
> the
> VOR is a "measured distance", I'd say the actual distance would not be
> different then MY own perception.
>

Your perception of distance may be significantly different than reality.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Eehpe.31523$xm3.10819@attbi_s21...
>
> It goes well beyond that. VFR pilots fly GPS direct, which totally
> eliminates the use of VORs for navigation. (I turn my VORs on, once in a
> while, just to see if they still work.)
>
> In flight planning, I really couldn't care less where the VORs are, any
> more than I would want to know where the NDBs, A/N radio ranges, or light
> beacons used to be. They have *all* been supplanted by GPS in the VFR
> world, and the IFR world is slowly (glacially?) catching up to the
> technology.
>
> Thus, a position report of "X mile south of the VOR on the 134 radial" is
> not going to tell a transient VFR pilot much, without digging out the
> sectional chart -- not likely to happen while in the pattern to land. It
> *will* help me visualize your location at my home airport, but only
> because I learned to fly "in the olden days" before GPS...
>

What does the navigation method have to do with it? I don't care if you're
using GPS, VOR, NDB, celestial, pilotage, dead reckoning, or an Ouija Board,
if you can't look at a chart and recognize a VOR symbol you shouldn't be in
an airplane solo.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> But I know the locals will know where the VOR is.
>

The transients should as well.


>
> Problem is, the locals will also report their position relative to "the
> tanks" or "the bridge", or "5 corners" or other such nonsense for
> transients. Even ATC does it at some 'ports.
>

Anything that appears on the sectional is fair game. That which does not
should not be used.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> The transients should as well. (know where the VOR'S are)

And you assume this is true, even in the wake of two pilots flying almost to
the Whitehouse?

Lots more out there, where they came from. Argue all you want. Simple fact
is, not all are going to know what VOR's are where, all the time.

Period. Game point match. Reality. A cruel bitch.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:33:55 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>> One of my local untowered airports has an ILS, so on a busy day with 5
>>> people in the pattern, there is always one bozo doing straight ins (and
>>> making radio calls that the guys in the pattern don't understand) and
>>> disrupting everybody else.
>>I thought so. The problem here is the guys in the pattern do not understand
>>that the "bozos" on final have the right-of-way.
>
>5 miles out on an ILS is not "on final". Final is a part of the pattern,
>and unless you fly 5 mile patterns, that's not part of it.

Hmmmm... I'm wondering then when cleared for departure at LAN they
said: " Eight thrity three romeo, please expidite as there is a DC-9
on five mile final." <:-)) That was their words.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter R.]

Jay wrote:

> Have you done a cross country flight lately, Pete? I don't mean to
> Spokane -- I mean CROSS COUNTRY. If so, you would know how ludicrous
> your statement truly is.

Jay, I just completed a true XC flight last week, from New York to
California, then up to Colorado and back to NY.

OK, so most legs of this trip were flown IFR, but even during the one
VFR leg (Arizona up to Denver) I needed to know the closest VOR for
PIREP reporting and, more importantly, for contacting flight watch to
receive weather.

--
Peter

[Ben Hallert]

>> The transients should as well. (know where the VOR'S are)
>And you assume this is true, even in the wake of two pilots flying almost to
>the Whitehouse?

Please clarify, are you holding the ADIZ pilots up as examples of
people who did things as they _should_? I ask because the poster said
that transients SHOULD know where the VORs are. I'm not trying to be a
jerk, but I'd argue that you bolstered his argument.

It seems that the ADIZ violators demonstrated that aspects of their
navigation were not as precise as they 'should' be.

[Morgans]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote
>
> Please clarify, are you holding the ADIZ pilots up as examples of
> people who did things as they _should_?

No, not at all. The poster said everyone should know where every VOR is
along their flight. Kinda obvious that many pilots are not nearly that
competant, since the ADIZ pilots could not handle anything as obvious as
Washington. I would bet that they also had no clue of the VOR's around.

> I ask because the poster said
> that transients SHOULD know where the VORs are. I'm not trying to be a
> jerk, but I'd argue that you bolstered his argument.

Perhaps everyone should, but reality says many do not.
>
> It seems that the ADIZ violators demonstrated that aspects of their
> navigation were not as precise as they 'should' be.

Without a doubt. They are just two that got caught. Think of how many out
there don't do anything so obvious, to get caught.
--
Jim in NC
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I swear, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt that you have
> actually piloted an aircraft in the last 10 years.
>
> GPS has changed *everything* about flying -- and clinging to the old
> VOR system is just another example of calcified thinking.
>
> I have no doubt that 50 years ago some felt the same way about those
> pilots who didn't "have a clue" where the A/N radio ranges were, and
> nowadays (every now and then) I hear old timers grumbling about the
> loss of our NDB approach into Iowa City. Time doesn't stand still, and
> many people long for the familiarity of what they know best -- but
> pilots are supposed to be lighter on their feet than the average Joe on
> the street.
>
> Change can be difficult to accept, and the elderly often find it easier
> to just sit back and feign superiority...but I didn't think you were
> *that* old, Pete.
>

What in the wide, wide world of sports does any of that have to do with the
use of a VOR as a reference point in a position report?


>
> Have you done a cross country flight lately, Pete? I don't mean to
> Spokane -- I mean CROSS COUNTRY. If so, you would know how ludicrous
> your statement truly is.
>
> If not, you really aren't qualified to comment.
>
> We are about to embark on a cross-continent cross-country flight. If
> at any point in the next three days I turn on my VORs, it will be
> because I am bored, and we will have listened to all our music CDs.
>
> Stupidly, I might attempt to use my 1950s-tech dual VORs to
> "cross-check" my dual GPS-verified position, even though I know that
> they are exponentially less accurate instruments.
>
> THAT is the reality of VORs to the modern pilot, Pete. Welcome to the
> real world. You should have taken the Blue Pill.
>


It appears you've lost track of the discussion. We're not talking about
navigating by VOR, we're talking about use of a VOR as a reference point in
a position report. Whether I'm using VOR or GPS to fly the VOR or GPS RWY
36 approach at IOW I'm still going to announce my position over the VOR. An
announcement over a defined and readily identifiable point such as a VOR
tells all but the clueless exactly where I am.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless I am about to run into a VOR I could care less where they are and
> if I am close to an airport and need to be looking out the window I am not
> about to look at the sectional to try to locate one.
>

Then you shouldn't be flying.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you assume this is true, even in the wake of two pilots flying almost
> to the Whitehouse?
>

I haven't assumed anything.


>
> Lots more out there, where they came from. Argue all you want. Simple
> fact is, not all are going to know what VOR's are where, all the time.
>

Yup, lots of clueless pilots out there.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, not at all. The poster said everyone should know where every VOR is
> along their flight.
>

No poster said anything like that in this discussion.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, not at all. The poster said everyone should know where every VOR is
> > along their flight.

Seems to me, that is implied. If you were buzzing along, and someone made a
call, positioning himself at a VOR, you would need to know where it was, to
know if it was important to you, right? How would you know, if you did not
know where the VOR's along your flight were?
--
Jim in NC
> >
>
> No poster said anything like that in this discussion.
>
>

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Kinda obvious that many pilots are not nearly that
> competant, since the ADIZ pilots could not handle anything as obvious as
> Washington. I would bet that they also had no clue of the VOR's around.

There's every indication that they had a fair idea of where they were and
intended to be there. They just didn't know they weren't allowed to run the VFR
corridor anymore. They were only a little off course for that.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Seems to me, that is implied.

Doesn't seem implied to me at all. The original postulations involved multiple
aircraft approaching to land at an airport. That is a situation in which several
aircraft are known to be at the same altitude on courses which are more or less
converging. Knowing the location of the applicable VOR will tell you
approximately how close to converging those courses are. It's a *real* stretch
to say the same thing about cruise flight.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> Doesn't seem implied to me at all.

> It's a *real* stretch
> to say the same thing about cruise flight.

I guess that depends somewhat on altitude and location of the cruiser.

Ahh, the old odd problem of interpretation. Doesn't really matter who is
right or wrong, only that multiple people reading the same information, see
a different thing. Happens all the time.

I guess that is why lawyers are still around. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems to me, that is implied.
>

It may seem that way to you, but it isn't that way.


>
> If you were buzzing along, and someone made a call, positioning himself at
> a
> VOR, you would need to know where it was, to know if it was important to
> you, right?
>

Well, if you're a competent pilot you'll know where it is so that's not a
problem. But if you're a competent pilot you don't buzz along over airports
at traffic pattern altitudes so that's not an issue. How is it you'd hear
these calls anyway?