required eqipment for ifr

[Mark]

I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

Thanks
Mark

[Teacherjh]

>>
the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs.
Is that required for IFR flight?
<<

Nope. If you are not using those checkpints or doing DME-required approaches,
you don't need DME. Many intersections are also identified by dual VORs, but
you don't (legally) even need two VORs (except for certain approaches - the
requirement is on the plate), you just tune one, then tune the other, to check
your position.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dan Luke]

"Mark" wrote:
> I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
> club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight?

No.

> I noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

Some procedures require DME or (GPS substitute).
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Roy Smith]

"Mark" > wrote:
> I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
> club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
> noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

The vast majority of planes people do IFR training in do not have DME,
because there is no requirement to have DME to fly IFR in general(*).
You need DME above flight level mumble-something (240?), and you need
DME to fly approaches with DME in the title or a note saying "DME
required". Some approaches will allow lower minimums if you have DME.

Other than that, in the en-route environment, the vast majority of fixes
are defined by both DME and VOR-VOR crosses. If you don't have DME, you
just have to tune in the other VOR and work the cross-fix. Granted, DME
makes it more convenient, but it's hardly necessary.

Of course, GPS is turning this all on its ear.

My advice to you is to concentrate on the basics. First, make sure you
have BAI (Basic Attitude Instruments) down so cold you can hold heading,
altitude, and airspeed to better than PTS requirements while reading a
chart and having a heated argument with your instructor about politics,
sports, or the releative merits of the Beach Boys vs. The Grateful Dead.

In smooth air, you should be able to hold +/- 2 degrees, +/- 20 feet,
and +/- 2 kts for 5 minutes at a time, and 5 degrees, 50 feet, and 5 kts
indefinately. Once you can do that, you're ready to move on. If you
still have to think about holding heading, altitude, and airspeed,
you're not ready for more complex stuff.

Once you've got BAI mastered, then move on to the fun stuff like
navigation, holding, and approaches. Moving onto the fun stuff too fast
is probably the single biggest (and most common) mistake you can make in
your instrument training.

Once you've learned to do everything with 2 VOR receivers, it's easy to
add in DME later.

The more interesting question today is not whether you have DME, but
whether you have GPS. You will have to demonstrate 3 kinds of
approaches on your checkride. Traditionally, this has meant a VOR, an
NDB, and an ILS. Today, it's more and more becoming a VOR, a GPS, and
an ILS. As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

(*) This is a US-centric view of the universe, and is not true in some
other parts of the world.

[Hankal]

> I just can't justify to
>myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
>much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
>you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

But many of us do not have a panel mount GPS.

[Jeff]

All depends on the kind of approaches you have around you, here in las vegas,
I have no idea where the closest NDB approach is. my check ride was a ILS,
VOR and a VOR circle.




Roy Smith wrote:

> "Mark" > wrote:
> > I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
> > club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
> > noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.
>
> The vast majority of planes people do IFR training in do not have DME,
> because there is no requirement to have DME to fly IFR in general(*).
> You need DME above flight level mumble-something (240?), and you need
> DME to fly approaches with DME in the title or a note saying "DME
> required". Some approaches will allow lower minimums if you have DME.
>
> Other than that, in the en-route environment, the vast majority of fixes
> are defined by both DME and VOR-VOR crosses. If you don't have DME, you
> just have to tune in the other VOR and work the cross-fix. Granted, DME
> makes it more convenient, but it's hardly necessary.
>
> Of course, GPS is turning this all on its ear.
>
> My advice to you is to concentrate on the basics. First, make sure you
> have BAI (Basic Attitude Instruments) down so cold you can hold heading,
> altitude, and airspeed to better than PTS requirements while reading a
> chart and having a heated argument with your instructor about politics,
> sports, or the releative merits of the Beach Boys vs. The Grateful Dead.
>
> In smooth air, you should be able to hold +/- 2 degrees, +/- 20 feet,
> and +/- 2 kts for 5 minutes at a time, and 5 degrees, 50 feet, and 5 kts
> indefinately. Once you can do that, you're ready to move on. If you
> still have to think about holding heading, altitude, and airspeed,
> you're not ready for more complex stuff.
>
> Once you've got BAI mastered, then move on to the fun stuff like
> navigation, holding, and approaches. Moving onto the fun stuff too fast
> is probably the single biggest (and most common) mistake you can make in
> your instrument training.
>
> Once you've learned to do everything with 2 VOR receivers, it's easy to
> add in DME later.
>
> The more interesting question today is not whether you have DME, but
> whether you have GPS. You will have to demonstrate 3 kinds of
> approaches on your checkride. Traditionally, this has meant a VOR, an
> NDB, and an ILS. Today, it's more and more becoming a VOR, a GPS, and
> an ILS. As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
> myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
> much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
> you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.
>
> (*) This is a US-centric view of the universe, and is not true in some
> other parts of the world.

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
> myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
> much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
> you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

It's certainly time well spent to *really* learn the GPS. But a good NDB
approach, or hold, is quite satisfying. Given the choice of which to
carry, I'd pick the GPS. But if I have the NDB, I'll use it.

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> It's certainly time well spent to *really* learn the GPS. But a good NDB
> approach, or hold, is quite satisfying. Given the choice of which to
> carry, I'd pick the GPS. But if I have the NDB, I'll use it.

The question is not whether there is greater than zero value in NDB.
It's clear that there is. As for satisfaction, well yes, I agree that
there is satisfaction in mastery of almost any skill. That's why I
learned how to work a sextant. Am I ever going to use that skill for
real? Hardly, but it sure is satisfying to spend half an hour working a
round of sights and getting a nice tight fix (say, under a mile probable
error).

The question is whether it's worth investing the time it takes to master
it. Especially when that time could be spent mastering a tool which
provides such a vastly greater amount of information, utility, safety,
etc. It's pretty much a zero sum game. If you spend an hour working on
one thing, that's one hour less you get to spend on something else.

Of course, if the student *wants* to learn how to fly NDB approaches, I
see nothing wrong with teaching them, as an optional part of the
curriculum. I just don't see the point of making it required.

My club recently voted to get rid of all our ADFs. We'll keep them in
the planes as long as they work, but won't spend any more money fixing
them when they break.

[Roger Halstead]

On 14 Dec 2003 23:32:04 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>the 172s in the
>club I blelong to don't have DMEs.
> Is that required for IFR flight?
><<
>
>Nope. If you are not using those checkpints or doing DME-required approaches,
>you don't need DME. Many intersections are also identified by dual VORs, but
>you don't (legally) even need two VORs (except for certain approaches - the
>requirement is on the plate), you just tune one, then tune the other, to check

Now that's fun. I had one instructor fail every radio in the plane
but one VOR receiver. (naturally it was the one that didn't have
RNAV/DME) Then I had to intercept the radial, do the procedure turn,
do the hold, with at least 4 times around, then do the approach.
Oh...and it was all partial panel which meant timed turns as well.
At least it was a "flip flop" dual channel radio.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

>your position.
>
>Jose

[Roger Halstead]

On 15 Dec 2003 01:17:01 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:

>> I just can't justify to
>>myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
>>much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
>>you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.
>
>But many of us do not have a panel mount GPS.

Just make sure you are proficient with what ever the plane you fly for
the test has in it. Last I knew NDB was required, (but they may not
be any more) but I found them to be quite easy and could never figure
out the fuss.

The only problem in figuring out GPS navigation, or approaches is the
lack of standardization between manufacturers and trying to enter way
points while bouncing around. It can be very trying if you are not
very familiar with the unit in the plane.

As to panel mount...I fly my hand held and make sure it agrees with
the RNAV in the airplane. The RNAV is primary, but there is nothing
to prevent me from flying the hand held.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers.

[Larry Fransson]

I'm surprised nobody made the obligatory FAR reference: 91.205(d).

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Andrew Gideon]

Roy Smith wrote:

> As for satisfaction, well yes, I agree that
> there is satisfaction in mastery of almost any skill. That's why I
> learned how to work a sextant. Am I ever going to use that skill for
> real? Hardly,

Well...it's getting unlikely for me too. The club to which I belong has
also adopted the "if it breaks, don't fix it" mentality. I think that a
bit of a shame, but it's true that I'd rather spend maintenance dollars
elsewhere.

[...]

> is whether it's worth investing the time it takes to master
> it. Especially when that time could be spent mastering a tool which
> provides such a vastly greater amount of information, utility, safety,
> etc. It's pretty much a zero sum game. If you spend an hour working on
> one thing, that's one hour less you get to spend on something else.

Oh, see, I don't see it as a zero sum game (excluding maintenance costs).
Part of why I fly is that satisfaction of flying well. Circular, I know,
but true nevertheless. So getting/staying good at using the NDB - as long
as I have one <grin> - is a reason to fly. I suppose it's my version of a
$100 burger.

> Of course, if the student *wants* to learn how to fly NDB approaches, I
> see nothing wrong with teaching them, as an optional part of the
> curriculum. I just don't see the point of making it required.

Hmm...that's more a function of the airplane, right? As I understood it,
the DE could test me on anything in the aircraft. Since I was flying with
a GPS, I had to be able to use it. I was also flying with an ADF, so I had
to be able to use that.

[Actually...I might not have flown with a GPS. Now that I think on it, the
one 172S with a GPS at my FBO at the time was on a trip. So I took the
checkride in an airplane with DME and ADF, but no GPS. And yes, one of my
checkride approaches was an NDB (into MGJ, I think).]

[Actually, the DE snuck in an extra approach, counting the one we did
getting back to CDW. I think he didn't expect that we'd be able to get
that one from ATC.]

> My club recently voted to get rid of all our ADFs. We'll keep them in
> the planes as long as they work, but won't spend any more money fixing
> them when they break.

Perhaps we can just convince our respective clubs to "get it over with" and
go for the new Garmin glass panel in our aircraft.

- Andrew

[Dave S]

An NDB is not "required".. and you can take a checkride in an aircraft
without one installed.. the practical test is 1 precision and 2
nonprecision approaches.

however, if an NDB is installed in the aircraft, it would behoove you to
be able to make an approach or hold with it.

Dave

Roger Halstead wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2003 01:17:01 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:
>
>
>>>I just can't justify to
>>>myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
>>>much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
>>>you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.
>>
>>But many of us do not have a panel mount GPS.
>
>
> Just make sure you are proficient with what ever the plane you fly for
> the test has in it. Last I knew NDB was required, (but they may not
> be any more) but I found them to be quite easy and could never figure
> out the fuss.
>
> The only problem in figuring out GPS navigation, or approaches is the
> lack of standardization between manufacturers and trying to enter way
> points while bouncing around. It can be very trying if you are not
> very familiar with the unit in the plane.
>
> As to panel mount...I fly my hand held and make sure it agrees with
> the RNAV in the airplane. The RNAV is primary, but there is nothing
> to prevent me from flying the hand held.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers.
>

[paul k. sanchez]

>I'm surprised nobody made the obligatory FAR reference: 91.205(d).
>
>--
>Larry Fransson
>Seattle, WA
>

Larry:
Since you asked. My favorite is 91.205 (e) which refers to DME requirements
at/above FL240 but only if using VOR navigation. I love it when I explain to
other lesser knowing instructors that a great many aircraft do not have DME but
yet they do have IFR clearances at/above FL240. The trick is not use VOR
navigation.

How poorly understood, worst so how poorly taught.

§91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and,
for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate
to the ground facilities to be used.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight
attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the
instrument requirements prescribed in §121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight
attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll and installed in
accordance with §29.1303(g) of this chapter.

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer
or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

(e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment
is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a
U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of
Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved
distance measuring equipment (DME). When DME required by this paragraph fails
at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft shall notify ATC
immediately, and then may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next
airport of intended landing at which repairs or replacement of the equipment
can be made.

(f) Category II operations. The requirements for Category II operations are the
instruments and equipment specified in --

(1) Paragraph (d) of this section; and

(2) Appendix A to this part.

(g) Category III operations. The instruments and equipment required for
Category III operations are specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(h) Exclusions. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section do not apply to
operations conducted by a holder of a certificate issued under part 121 or part
135 of this chapter.

paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-345-4276 home/fax

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Roy Smith
> writes:

>That's why I
>learned how to work a sextant. Am I ever going to use that skill for
>real? Hardly, but it sure is satisfying to spend half an hour working a
>round of sights and getting a nice tight fix (say, under a mile probable
>error).

I did the same thing re the sextant, Roy. Did it for fun on my sailboat. Then
found that I couldn't work up the sights till I got back to land. I'd go down
into the cabin and start to figure and the stomach would not sit still. It
isn't much good to know "where you were".<G>

Chuck

[Ralf S.]

You're lucky guys in the US. That's what is required in Germany for a IFR
certified "little" Cessna:

It only lists the radio/navigational equipment:

- 2 Radios for simultaneous use
- 2 VOR's
- 1 ADF
- Transponder Mode A/C or Mode S
- 1 DME

Isn't that a little bit strange? Even if you don't need it you will have to
have it.

What do you think? In my opinion that's why you pay for a IR rating about
15 - 20000 bucks in Germany.

Ralf

"Mark" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .
> I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
> club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
> noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.
>
> Thanks
> Mark

[David Megginson]

Ralf S. wrote:

> It only lists the radio/navigational equipment:
>
> - 2 Radios for simultaneous use
> - 2 VOR's
> - 1 ADF
> - Transponder Mode A/C or Mode S
> - 1 DME
>
> Isn't that a little bit strange? Even if you don't need it you will have to
> have it.
>
> What do you think? In my opinion that's why you pay for a IR rating about
> 15 - 20000 bucks in Germany.

It actually sounds like a normal 172 or Cherokee avionics stack -- it's
exactly what my Warrior II came with when I bought it. Every IFR-certified
rental plane I've seen has this equipment, +/- the DME (which is hit or miss).

An instrument rating in Canada is about 40 hours' instruction (at around USD
30/hour) plus rental time, ground school, and a few fees. Most pilots
already have 10 hours IFR from the PPL and 5 from the night rating, so
practically, it's around 25 hours, though there will probably be 4-5 hours
of ground briefing added on.


All the best,


David

[Ralf S.]

Yeah, sounds much better. That's why I will do it somewhere in the US.

Here in Germany many airplanes are not equiped for IFR. Most of them have
only one VOR and one radio. Maybe a ADfF but not too many have a DME. And as
you can imagine the new ones that are equiped are more expensive. So for one
hour IFR you'll have to count with 200 EUR and more per hour.

rgds
ralf


"David Megginson" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
able.rogers.com...
> Ralf S. wrote:
>
> > It only lists the radio/navigational equipment:
> >
> > - 2 Radios for simultaneous use
> > - 2 VOR's
> > - 1 ADF
> > - Transponder Mode A/C or Mode S
> > - 1 DME
> >
> > Isn't that a little bit strange? Even if you don't need it you will have
to
> > have it.
> >
> > What do you think? In my opinion that's why you pay for a IR rating
about
> > 15 - 20000 bucks in Germany.
>
> It actually sounds like a normal 172 or Cherokee avionics stack -- it's
> exactly what my Warrior II came with when I bought it. Every
IFR-certified
> rental plane I've seen has this equipment, +/- the DME (which is hit or
miss).
>
> An instrument rating in Canada is about 40 hours' instruction (at around
USD
> 30/hour) plus rental time, ground school, and a few fees. Most pilots
> already have 10 hours IFR from the PPL and 5 from the night rating, so
> practically, it's around 25 hours, though there will probably be 4-5 hours
> of ground briefing added on.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David
>

[David Brooks]

"Mark" > wrote in message
.. .
> I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
> club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
> noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

I'll add to the excellent commentary:

1) Don't train in a DME-free plane, and then check out a DME-equipped one
for the checkride (as I nearly did). Checkrides are not the place to figure
how to fly an arc or hold at a DME fix. I had practiced both, but not
recently outside the sim.

2) When looking for approaches to avoid, don't forget to check NOTAMs. For
example, the VOR-A approach at Olympia is semi-permanently NOTAM'ed DME
required, I think because the TCM VOR is longterm out of service, and it was
the other way of identifying HABOR.

-- David Brooks

[Michael]

Roy Smith > wrote
> The question is not whether there is greater than zero value in NDB.
> It's clear that there is. As for satisfaction, well yes, I agree that
> there is satisfaction in mastery of almost any skill. That's why I
> learned how to work a sextant. Am I ever going to use that skill for
> real? Hardly, but it sure is satisfying to spend half an hour working a
> round of sights and getting a nice tight fix (say, under a mile probable
> error).

The real question is - did you learn things about navigation by
learning to work a sextant that you would not have learned otherwise,
and are those things important? Some (maybe most) students have to
have VOR triangulation explained to them. Clearly some never learn,
or forget - I have a friend who works at a FSS that long ago lost DF
steer capability, and he has to talk pilots through the procedure on a
regular basis. On the other hand, I bet you intuitively grasped the
procedure without having it explained, and immediately understood the
impact of geometry on the accuracy of the fix.

It's really not possible to do an NDB approach acceptably unless you
really understand the difference between heading, bearing, course, and
track - not in the sense that you can parrot back dictionary
definitions on the ground, but in the sense that you immediately
understand what the differences are and what's important. Can those
things be learned without the NDB? Certainly - but the pilot who has
learned and internalized those things finds an NDB approach easy, even
if he has never done one before. On the other hand, a pilot who gets
those things confused is going to have no end of trouble with NDB
approaches. He might well need 10 hours of training before he can do
them. He's not learning to do NDB approaches - he's learning to
maintain situational awareness in real time with minimal resources.

Is that important? I think it is. If I had a dollar for every time
I've ever had to tell an instrument student "Just because the needle
is centered does not mean you're flying the right heading..."
Actually, flight instructor compensation being what it is, I probably
do. More to the point, an awful lot of pilots seem to lose
situational awareness and crash. Loss of situational awareness is
probably the single biggest killer in IMC.

I suppose one day we will all have multiply redundant moving maps, and
at that point the ability to maintain situational awareness with
minimal resources may not be important anymore. I don't believe that
day is here yet, and it may never come.

I've also heard the argument that the time is better spent learning
GPS. I don't believe that. First of all, even a moving map GPS is no
substitute for situational awareness. I've seen an instrument student
using an IFR moving map GPS turn the wrong way on a published segment
and proceed to descend while going away from the airport.

Second, flying a GPS approach is trivial. It's just like a VOR
approach, except that the radial is perfectly straight, there is no
zone of confusion, and you get a constant readout on distance to the
next fix. The hard part of flying GPS approaches is working the user
interface on the box - and they're all different.

In my opinion, the most important reason to retain the ADF in the
instrument trainer is as a hedge against the generally low quality of
instrument instruction. A good instrument instructor can teach good
situational awareness habits even without it, just as a good primary
instructor can teach good takeoff and landing habits without a
tailwheel. But the lack of an ADF, like the lack of a tailwheel,
allows a student to get by with sloppy habits if the instructor
doesn't intervene.

Michael

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael wrote:

> Is that important?

How interesting. Your reasoning on this matter is quite similar to why I
think programmers/computer-scientists should still learn assembler
programming and other "low level" skills.

Understanding how and why one's tools work can often be important in
understanding them - and therefore in using them properly.

- Andrew

[Robert M. Gary]

On my FAA checkride, years ago the the ILS at the local airport was
down for work. The night before my CFII and I went out to practice at
the next biggest airport only to find the glideslope dead. The only
other airport available is the local class C airport but they
discourage practice ILSs by requiring full stop for all approaches
(which makes the checkride take forever, if you have to line up before
the SouthWest 737s each time). Luckily someone came out and fixed the
glide slope at the airport.
-Robert

[Michael]

Andrew Gideon > wrote
> How interesting. Your reasoning on this matter is quite similar to why I
> think programmers/computer-scientists should still learn assembler
> programming and other "low level" skills.

I didn't realize that this was controversial. I won't even consider
hiring a software engineer who can't write in assembly.

Michael

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Andrew Gideon > wrote
> > How interesting. Your reasoning on this matter is quite similar to why
I
> > think programmers/computer-scientists should still learn assembler
> > programming and other "low level" skills.
>
> I didn't realize that this was controversial. I won't even consider
> hiring a software engineer who can't write in assembly.
>
....or write documentation in Sanskrit!