PDA

View Full Version : IR without actual IMC


Iain Wilson
August 1st 03, 12:06 PM
Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).


Iain

David Megginson
August 1st 03, 12:53 PM
"Iain Wilson" > writes:

> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is
> around the corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to
> experience it but the damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the
> same way with the PPL!).

Most of my actual came near the end of my training; until then, we
were just outside that nasty weather sitting over the U.S. east coast
in the Spring, so we just couldn't find any IMC at a reasonable
altitude to practice in. Even then, I was getting actual only in
cloud at altitude (i.e. for holds and enroute). We didn't manage to
find enough actual for approach to near minima until (I think) my
second-last lesson. I ended up doing my flight test a couple of days
later at 8:00 am with 400 ft ceilings, and it went great (it was
wonderful not to have to wear the foggles; the missed approach on the
NDB 07 was for real, and and the final ILS approach was the only way
we could get back home).

For now, you should be able to arrange some holds and enroute up in
the clouds, even if the ceiling is too high for approaches in IMC.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

Gary L. Drescher
August 1st 03, 01:05 PM
"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
> corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).

I don't think it matters much whether your checkride occurs before or after
you're introduced to actual IMC. But if the checkride happens first, I'd
strongly advise against flying in clouds until you've had a chance to try it
with a CFII. Staying upright can be surprisingly more difficult when you
don't have the peripheral-vision cues that hoods/foggles usually fail to
suppress.

--Gary

> Iain

Ryan Ferguson
August 1st 03, 02:28 PM
It would be ideal to find some actual IMC and fly in it prior to the
checkride. That's not always possible, especially in the southwest, but it
would be a good idea. It might be a littel disconcerting to you to enter your
first cloud during your flight test.

A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument applicants
cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must not be
ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

Iain Wilson wrote:

> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
> corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).
>
> Iain

Peter R.
August 1st 03, 06:09 PM
Michael ) wrote:

> IMC that is sufficiently benign for the average instrument trainer is
> not common in much of the US. For example, where I'm based IMC
> usually means embedded T-storms;

Come to central NY. Typically there is a low overcast over our region
thanks to Lake Ontario.

However, I do have to admit that this summer we have had more than our
share of embedded t-storms.

Then, of course, there is the issue of icing from October to April...

Well, OK, in May and September it is good. :-)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Megginson
August 1st 03, 08:30 PM
Peter R. > writes:

> Come to central NY. Typically there is a low overcast over our region
> thanks to Lake Ontario.
>
> However, I do have to admit that this summer we have had more than our
> share of embedded t-storms.

I'd expect that you'd have the low overcast typically in the morning,
and the embedded CB and TCU in the afternoon.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

Ryan Ferguson
August 1st 03, 09:07 PM
There are lots of helicopter CFIIs who have never seen the inside of a cloud.
Not their fault - there's no reasonable way for most of them to fly a rotorcraft
into IMC without spending a fortune, since most (all?) piston trainers are not
IFR-certified.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H


> I once read an article written by a CFI-I who claims to have NEVER flown in
> actual IMC. Is that scary?

Mark Kolber
August 1st 03, 11:49 PM
On 1 Aug 2003 10:02:44 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>IMC that is sufficiently benign for the average instrument trainer is
>not common in much of the US. For example, where I'm based IMC
>usually means embedded T-storms; unless your trainer has RADAR and/or
>Stormscope, that grounds you.

That really does depend where. In the Rockies, IMC usually means
cumulonimbus, cumulo-granite, severe icing, heavy turbulence.

On the other hand, during my instrument training in New England I
accumulated 6 hours of actual, some of it low enough to log "real"
missed approaches (including one off an ILS).

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

Ben Jackson
August 2nd 03, 05:58 AM
In article ink.net>,
Iain Wilson > wrote:
>Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC?

I guess I can't do that, since I got 0.1 actual during my PPL.
In fact, that dual XC made it crystal clear how useful an IR could
be even without every flying "hard" IFR. I flew the Farmington 3
departure from HIO and we broke out at about 3000' and the rest of
the trip was VFR (clouds burned off HIO by our return).

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Roger Halstead
August 3rd 03, 08:33 AM
On 1 Aug 2003 10:02:44 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>"Iain Wilson" > wrote
>> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
>> corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
>> damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).
>
>When I took my checkride, I had no dual in IMC. This is not a rare
>condition. There are even quite a few CFII's out there who have never
>flown in IMC. The problem is lack of opportunity.
>
>IMC that is sufficiently benign for the average instrument trainer is

When I took the flight test I had enough time in actual that my first
flights were down to minimums. I was far more proficient then than I
am now.

As far as benign...my instructor only picked stuff where he wasn't
worried about structural failure, or it sure seemed that way. I sure
didn't think the stuff was benign.

I had over 12 hours of actual and probably 15 to 20 approaches right
down o minimums and below, on NDBs, VORs, and ILSs prior to taking the
test. He was real good at getting me out to practice approaches when
the ceilings were just barely high enough to do the VOR - A to get
back into 3BS. A couple of times it went well below minimums after
we landed. There were times when I was concerned we'd have to go
back over to MBS for the ILS and have my wife come to pick us up.

Course I live in the center of the lower peninsula of Michigan where a
really clear day may be 10 miles visibility. We may get those "see
clear to the horizon" days 3 or 4 times a year on average. We get a
lot of marginal VFR down to a mile or two quite often.

There is a lot of vegetation with the accompanying haze.
If you look closely the majority of the state, including the prime
farm land is one big swamp. They just drained the swamp to create the
farm land.

>not common in much of the US. For example, where I'm based IMC
>usually means embedded T-storms; unless your trainer has RADAR and/or
>Stormscope, that grounds you. Most rental IFR trainers don't.

You can fly in the soup around here for hours (at times) without
having to worry about thunderstorms. Sometimes you can end up in
torrential rain where the RADAR is one big red splotch, yet the ride
is as smooth as sitting in a big easy chair on a concrete floor.
OTOH, some times just the green echoes are about as rough as you ever
want to get.

About 3 or 4 years ago It was almost solid from here to Oshkosh. I
was solid from The lake Michigan shoreline to OSH. Then they ran me
way to the west for the VOR 09. Coming home we were skimming the
tops at 7,000 with about 40 miles of torrential ran before the VOR-A
into 3BS. Yet it was as smooth as silk.

The next week we weren't in the clouds as much, but it was like
driving down a road full of chuck holes. Pretty rough ride and only
about 40 miles of the whole trip (each way) was in the soup.
>

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>My best suggestion is to do as much of your training as possible on
>overcast and/or moonless nights over sparsely populated areas; under
>those conditions hood training is quite realistic and will prepare you
>to maintain control of the airplane in IMC.
>
>Michael

Ross Richardson
August 4th 03, 08:32 PM
One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
turned.

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> Michael ) wrote:
>
> > IMC that is sufficiently benign for the average instrument trainer is
> > not common in much of the US. For example, where I'm based IMC
> > usually means embedded T-storms;
>
> Come to central NY. Typically there is a low overcast over our region
> thanks to Lake Ontario.
>
> However, I do have to admit that this summer we have had more than our
> share of embedded t-storms.
>
> Then, of course, there is the issue of icing from October to April...
>
> Well, OK, in May and September it is good. :-)
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Andrew Gideon
August 4th 03, 09:24 PM
Ross Richardson wrote:

> One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
> plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
> 172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
> vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
> turned.

I don't think that there's anything that can truly replace flight in IMC
(outside perhaps of high-end simulators, with which I've no experience).
There are just too many different variables.

For example, flight right above the clouds makes possible a "false horizon"
illusion. I'd read about that, but I remember starting the turn as I
looked off into the distance and saw "the horizon" tilted. It was a
humbling reminder that "knowing" and "experiencing" are not the same.

Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first few
times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was difficult
to stay on course and not "avoid".

I've perhaps a dozen or so "actual" hours, and I'm both glad and eager for
more. But yes, it is tough to get that time in the barely-IFR trainers we
tend to fly. It also requires the "right" selection of airports. Training
out of a field with no approach, or perhaps only a GPS or NDB, it's going
to be tough to find "good" weather w/o getting stuck away for a while.

We were fortunate that our airport had a localizer. Before a flight when
clouds were about, we'd hunt for the "best" weather in the neighborhood.
I've even flown some "real" misseds (?) as a result (albeit never on an
ILS, as I recall).

It's especially fun with approaches like the VOR-27 into SWF (if I'm
recalling the right approach). In poor visibility, you must really *look*
as the airport isn't straight ahead, but instead off to the right.

Still, I envy the students my CFII has that have their own airplanes. Many
were very well equiped. One just did his long XC in his Trinidad (?) with
a stormscope and NEXRAD.

<Sigh>

- Andrew

David Brooks
August 5th 03, 02:14 AM
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...

> Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first
few
> times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
> are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was difficult
> to stay on course and not "avoid".

Interesting. My first reaction to that was "woo-hoo!"

-- David Brooks

John Clonts
August 5th 03, 02:41 AM
"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first
> few
> > times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
> > are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was
difficult
> > to stay on course and not "avoid".
>
> Interesting. My first reaction to that was "woo-hoo!"
>

Absolutely! Ditto for me.

I got my IR on May 19, and since then it seems there has been nary a cloud
in Central Texas (except for during the thunderstorm downpours). But the
few that I've found I've been delighted to plow through, and so have my
passenger daughters!

BTW, I just today received my new certificate-- it's the plastic one with
the hologram that I've heard about. Woop-E-Doo!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
C210 N7NZ

Chris Matras
August 5th 03, 03:01 AM
Yes, the sun is a clue, but I've found when the sun is in the "picture"
I am more prone to vertigo. Anyone else??

Wheeeeeeee


Ross Richardson wrote:
> One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
> plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
> 172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
> vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
> turned.
>

Scott Schluer
August 6th 03, 06:19 PM
I would grumble also! I'm not IR (nor have I even begun IR training yet) but
it stands to reason that if you're being tested for competency as it relates
to flying in IMC and you run scared from actual IMC during your checkride
due to fear of failure or whatnot, you're not ready for it. So it's a little
more stressful, so is a vacuum pump failure in hard IFR. Also consider that
the FAA Examiner can take over if you run into trouble. If you're not
comfortable doing it with that safety net, why sign someone off to do it
with pax in the plane?



Just my $.02



Scott



"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
...
> It would be ideal to find some actual IMC and fly in it prior to the
> checkride. That's not always possible, especially in the southwest, but
it
> would be a good idea. It might be a littel disconcerting to you to enter
your
> first cloud during your flight test.
>
> A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument
applicants
> cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must
not be
> ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.
>
> -Ryan
> CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H
>
> Iain Wilson wrote:
>
> > Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around
the
> > corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> > damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).
> >
> > Iain
>

Michael
August 7th 03, 02:42 AM
"Scott Schluer" > wrote
> I would grumble also! I'm not IR (nor have I even begun IR training yet) but
> it stands to reason that if you're being tested for competency as it relates
> to flying in IMC and you run scared from actual IMC during your checkride
> due to fear of failure or whatnot, you're not ready for it.

I think there are two ways to look at this.

On the one hand, I buy it. When I took my IR ride, I was fully
prepared to do it in actual. I was in fact flying a non-precision
circling approach, to mins, within days of taking the ride, and I got
in. The guy behind me missed the approach.

On the other hand, that flight scared the crap out of me - and it had
nothing to do with my skills and everything to do with how unsuitable
my airplane was for hard IFR. By the time I shot that approach, I
pretty much had to get in. I had enough fuel to make my alternate,
but not much more - dealing with carb icing had eaten into my
reserves. On top of that, my alternate was down to 300 and 1, and it
was the best thing going - people were waiting to get in there. My
plane lacked the range to get out of the weather system which went
bad.

There was no ice, no T-storms - the IMC was benign - but it was still
pretty dumb. I made it because I was good enough to get in right at
mins, and because I used the GPS to supplement the VOR. I also had to
maneuver very carefully to proceed from the MAP (literally - I did not
see the runway until directly over the runway and with only seconds to
go on the clock) to the numbers while remaining clear of cloud,
because I broke out in a hole.

Basically, because of my flying skills and familiarity with my
airplane all was well, but if I had used good judgment I would not
have launched IFR in the first place. My airplane was unsuitable. It
should have told me something when a much more experienced pilot (the
ferry pilot for a famous aerobatic performer) who was flying a much
better IFR mount opted to scud run instead. And my airplane was a
Tri-Pacer - 4 place, 100 kts, 4 hour endurance - typical of the
standard IFR trainer.

Just because the IMC is supposedly flyable - meaning you're not going
to be falling out of the sky with ice on your wings or getting chewed
up by a T-storm - doesn't mean it's OK to fly hard IFR in a plane with
poor speed, range, and redundancy. It will be fine if nothing goes
wrong, but things do go wrong.

Quite often, refusal to take the average instrument trainer into IMC
is not a matter of low skill, but of good judgment. My last
instrument student took his ride in actual hard IFR. He passed. But
it wasn't in a rental. It was in a plane with reasonable speed,
range, and redundancy.

Michael

Andrew Gideon
August 7th 03, 03:36 PM
Ryan Ferguson wrote:

> A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument
> applicants
> cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must
> not be ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

I understood that VMC was required for the checkride.

- Andrew

Paul Tomblin
August 7th 03, 04:15 PM
In a previous article, Ryan Ferguson > said:
>A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument applicants
>cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must not be
>ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

Our local DE won't do checkrides in IMC because he wants to be able to see
the horizon during the unusual attitude recovery.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
-- Blair P. Houghton

Paul Tomblin
August 7th 03, 06:19 PM
In a previous article, Michael Hofmann > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> Our local DE won't do checkrides in IMC because he wants to be able to see
>> the horizon during the unusual attitude recovery.
>
>So he doesn't really believe in scanning and interpreting instruments? Most
>remarkable.

I think it's more a case that he believes that some candidates are quite
capable of tumbling the AI before he could recover. I think the PIC
liability issue might also be a factor.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and
another for which it wasn't.

Julian Scarfe
August 8th 03, 08:53 PM
"Scott Schluer" > wrote in message
...
> I would grumble also! I'm not IR (nor have I even begun IR training yet)
but
> it stands to reason that if you're being tested for competency as it
relates
> to flying in IMC and you run scared from actual IMC during your checkride
> due to fear of failure or whatnot, you're not ready for it. So it's a
little
> more stressful, ...

*Is* it more stressful? In Europe we have to do a checkride each year for
the IR. I pray for some nice IMC. It's usually smooth (Texans note, YMMV)
and the airspace is much quieter. There's usually enough clear air somewhere
to do the unusual attitudes work with peace of mind. By contrast, on a
"nice" VMC day as we're getting at the moment in the UK, there seems to be a
thermal (whoops there's 200 ft!) every mile and about half of them have
gliders hanging in them. I'll take soup any day.

Julian Scarfe

Tom S.
August 11th 03, 04:14 PM
"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> "Julian Scarfe" > writes:
>
> > In Europe we have to do a checkride each year for the IR. I pray
> > for some nice IMC. It's usually smooth (Texans note, YMMV) and the
> > airspace is much quieter.
>
> That's why I scheduled my first IFR flight test (Canadian ones are
> biennial) for 8:00 am. I was hoping for morning fog and smooth air,
> and I got 400 ft ceilings.
>

Out here in Arizona, we get about ten IMC days a year....maybe.

Dan Foster
September 27th 03, 01:40 AM
In article ink.net>, Iain Wilson > wrote:
> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
> corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).

Not much of an answer, but I can tell you that the one place you *DON'T*
want to pursue your IR training is in the Mojave Desert area (about an
hour's drive northeast of Los Angeles, USA) -- 360 days of perfect VMC
conditions, 4 days of degraded but still VMC conditions, and only one day
of actual IMC per year on the average.

With its wide-open desert areas and sunny skies, I think it'd be a dream
for me to do VFR flying there :) But completely the opposite for doing any
IFR flying in IMC conditions.

Of course, given that they've got a major military base in the area with
all sorts of exotic planes in the air... not likely to be much general
aviation air traffic other than these crossing via a carefully controlled
north-south corridor (as I understand it)!

I still can't believe I was able to see the base from about 1 1/2 hours out
(by car) given the desert was such so flat and wide-open with perfect
atmospheric conditions. Although it sure did have that illusion-like
quality to it -- seemed like it was 20 minutes away but in reality, about 90!

-Dan

Casey Wilson
September 27th 03, 03:28 AM
"Dan Foster" > wrote in message
...
> In article ink.net>,
Iain Wilson > wrote:
> > Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around
the
> > corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> > damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).
>
> Not much of an answer, but I can tell you that the one place you *DON'T*
> want to pursue your IR training is in the Mojave Desert area (about an
> hour's drive northeast of Los Angeles, USA) -- 360 days of perfect VMC
> conditions, 4 days of degraded but still VMC conditions, and only one day
> of actual IMC per year on the average.
>
> With its wide-open desert areas and sunny skies, I think it'd be a dream
> for me to do VFR flying there :) But completely the opposite for doing any
> IFR flying in IMC conditions.
>
> Of course, given that they've got a major military base in the area with
> all sorts of exotic planes in the air... not likely to be much general
> aviation air traffic other than these crossing via a carefully controlled
> north-south corridor (as I understand it)!
>
> I still can't believe I was able to see the base from about 1 1/2 hours
out
> (by car) given the desert was such so flat and wide-open with perfect
> atmospheric conditions. Although it sure did have that illusion-like
> quality to it -- seemed like it was 20 minutes away but in reality, about
90!
>
> -Dan

Thanks for the promo, Dan. Take a look on the north half of the LA
sectional and you'll find a number of GA airports. My home patch happens to
be IYK (Inyokern, locally we refer to it as IYK International). WE pretty
much deal with the MOAs and other Special Use Areas.
From the south end of the region, starting at Palmdale, a pretty tight
corridor runs north and south through an MOA, just as you said, until you
get past the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake. A couple of east/west
corridors exist. One going just about even with Palmdale headed to KDAG and
HEC. Another pushes east/west from IYK through what we call the Trona
Corridor. That one just skirts the southern boundary of R-2505 with a little
bounce over R-2506 at 6,000MSL. Most times you can request and get clearance
through -06.
As far at the weather, it is like you said severe-clear most of the
year. But the winds, ah the winds. In the spring we can get winds like you
can't talk about. The National Weather Service classifies a hurricane as
having winds faster than 75MPH. We've done that. And the dust storms -- a
couple years ago a north wind picked up dust(sand) from Owens Lake (just
norht of IYK) and delivered it to San Diego. We call those quarter-inch
winds. The wind blows hard enough to carry quarter-inch gravel.
Well, that may be an exageration.
I'm in the midst of IR training -- flying out of Edwards Aeroclub at
Edward AFB -- and I appreciate the problems of no actual. My instructor
promises me we'll cross into the LA basin a couple of times so I don't have
to wear the Foggles.

Tailwinds....

Casey

Mark Kolber
September 28th 03, 01:27 AM
In article
ink.net>, Iain
Wilson > wrote:
> Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around the
> corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
> damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).

It happens with regularity in some parts of the country.

Mark Kolber
APA/Denver, Colorado
www.midlifeflight.com
======================
email? Remove ".no.spam"

Everett M. Greene
October 13th 03, 11:15 PM
"Casey Wilson" > writes:
> [snip]
> As far at the weather, it is like you said severe-clear most of the
> year. But the winds, ah the winds. In the spring we can get winds like you
> can't talk about. The National Weather Service classifies a hurricane as
> having winds faster than 75MPH. We've done that. And the dust storms -- a
> couple years ago a north wind picked up dust(sand) from Owens Lake (just
> norht of IYK) and delivered it to San Diego. We call those quarter-inch
> winds. The wind blows hard enough to carry quarter-inch gravel.
> Well, that may be an exageration.

Have you figured out the ceiling readings issued by China Lake?
I seem to recall a 50,000 ft. "ceiling" being reported and
looking out the window at clouds so thin you could see right
through them. Would anything other than an SR71 be concerned
about that?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everett M. Greene (The Mojave Greene, crotalus scutulatus scutulatus)
Ridgecrest, Ca. 93555 Path:

The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting
something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

Paul Tomblin
October 13th 03, 11:26 PM
In a previous article, (Everett M. Greene) said:
>Have you figured out the ceiling readings issued by China Lake?
>I seem to recall a 50,000 ft. "ceiling" being reported and
>looking out the window at clouds so thin you could see right
>through them. Would anything other than an SR71 be concerned
>about that?

Sun tanners.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
There are many types of bigotry, some of them completely OK and
acceptable. This is the acceptable type called "postjudice".
-- Mike Andrews

Google