Flying patterns

[Mxsmanic]

Where on the Web can I learn more about flying traffic patterns? I
see constant references to them in various sources, but nothing that
explains exactly when they are used, and how.

For example, after reading for a while, I think I now understand what
the crosswind, base, final, and downwind legs are. But I can't find
out how long these legs are supposed to be, or what radius or type of
turns are expected to move from leg to leg. Are these patterns of a
standard size, or do they vary from one airport to another? If all
VFR aircraft (or IFR aircraft too?) enter the pattern, and all at the
same altitude, how do they avoid collisions, especially with the
disparate speeds that one sees from one aircraft to another?

I trying flying some of these patterns in the sim this morning. I
didn't do too badly, but I think I was still off the mark. And I
don't know how tightly the pattern must be adhered to.

Does everyone enter the pattern no matter what the direction from
which they approach the airport? Does it always have to be an entry
at a certain spot from a certain angle? I'm confused about how these
work. Pointers to useful Web explanations would be most appreciated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stubby]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Where on the Web can I learn more about flying traffic patterns? I
> see constant references to them in various sources, but nothing that
> explains exactly when they are used, and how.
>
> For example, after reading for a while, I think I now understand what
> the crosswind, base, final, and downwind legs are. But I can't find
> out how long these legs are supposed to be, or what radius or type of
> turns are expected to move from leg to leg. Are these patterns of a
> standard size, or do they vary from one airport to another? If all
> VFR aircraft (or IFR aircraft too?) enter the pattern, and all at the
> same altitude, how do they avoid collisions, especially with the
> disparate speeds that one sees from one aircraft to another?
>
> I trying flying some of these patterns in the sim this morning. I
> didn't do too badly, but I think I was still off the mark. And I
> don't know how tightly the pattern must be adhered to.
>
> Does everyone enter the pattern no matter what the direction from
> which they approach the airport? Does it always have to be an entry
> at a certain spot from a certain angle? I'm confused about how these
> work. Pointers to useful Web explanations would be most appreciated.
>
All you question will be answered if you buy a copy of FAR/AIM.
"Federal Aviation Regulations / Airman's Information Manual"

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Where on the Web can I learn more about flying traffic patterns? I
> see constant references to them in various sources, but nothing that
> explains exactly when they are used, and how.


well, at least as far as things happen on this side of the pond,
you'll find plenty to read here:

Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge FAA-H-8083-25 Revised 2003;
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/
Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3 Revised 1999;
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/

And there is plenty more where it comes from; for instance I
understand that you are a simmer, so may be would you also be
interested in reading a bit about instrument flying as well:

Instrument Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-15 Revised 2001;
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/
Instrument Procedures Handbook FAA-H-8261-1 Revised 2004;
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/

But you'll also find the handbooks for flying helicopters or gliders or
balloons, etc.

And finally, lots of goodies to be found in the regulations (you
might want to start with Chapters 1, 61 and 91 of the regulations,
and read pretty much everything in the AIM):

2005 14 CFR (FAR) and AIM;
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

--Sylvain

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Please do NOT answer this troll.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
om...
> Please do NOT answer this troll.
>

What troll?

[Stubby]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Please do NOT answer this troll.
>
>
Please do not tell me who to talk to.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc wrote:
> > Please do NOT answer this troll.
> >
> >
> Please do not tell me who to talk to.

Please don't eat the daisies.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_3_]]

Stubby wrote:
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Please do NOT answer this troll.
>>
>>
> Please do not tell me who to talk to.


I INSIST you not feed the troll.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Stubby]

Get lost, troll.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Stubby wrote:
>> Viperdoc wrote:
>>> Please do NOT answer this troll.
>>>
>>>
>> Please do not tell me who to talk to.
>
>
> I INSIST you not feed the troll.
>
>
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Stubby > wrote:

> Get lost, troll.

That's the spirit! Be gone troll.



>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > Stubby wrote:
> >> Viperdoc wrote:
> >>> Please do NOT answer this troll.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Please do not tell me who to talk to.
> >
> >
> > I INSIST you not feed the troll.
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:50:58 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> Where on the Web can I learn more about flying traffic patterns?
>
>wikipedia is often a good start:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield_traffic_pattern
>
>> Are these patterns of a
>> standard size, or do they vary from one airport to another?
>
>(This is from a European perspective)
>There's a "default" pattern which is rectangular, and whose lengths are
>defined by the runway length and the fact that crosswind & base are
>supposed to be 1 NM long. Everything else is deduced from there.

Here in the states my cross wind varies from about a city block to
nearly a mile depending on what I'm flying and how bad I want to scare
my passengers.

>
>Most airports have published pattern map though which every pilot is
>supposed to read before landing there. Often only one of two possible
>patterns is defined, or motor and glider traffic have separate ones.

The height is defined, but the speed of the aircraft will determine
how large the pattern.

A light jet is going to make a one mile base seem pretty short.

When I do a circle to land in the Deb holding one mile takes a lot of
power and it's a pretty steep turn at low altitude. Generally
passengers do not like that sort of landing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Stubby writes:

> All you question will be answered if you buy a copy of FAR/AIM.
> "Federal Aviation Regulations / Airman's Information Manual"

Thanks. I found something call the Aeronautical Information Manual,
which looks like it might be the same thing (?).

I had previously downloaded the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical
Knowledge, but it didn't seem to cover these things. I have the
Instrument Flying Handbook, also, although I assumed that the patterns
under discussion here were specific to VFR (?).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> well, at least as far as things happen on this side of the pond,
> you'll find plenty to read here:
>
> Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge FAA-H-8083-25 Revised 2003;
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/

I have this one.

> Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3 Revised 1999;
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/

Found it, thanks. I try to find the PDF versions and download those,
as they are easier and more convenient to read. I already had found
the Pilot's Handbook and an Instrument Flying Handbook, but I tend to
get them all confused.

I've seen hard copy of one or two books in the pilot shop I've
visited, but that's too expensive. The PDFs appear to contain exactly
the same thing, for free.

> And there is plenty more where it comes from; for instance I
> understand that you are a simmer, so may be would you also be
> interested in reading a bit about instrument flying as well:
>
> Instrument Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-15 Revised 2001;
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/

I have that one.

> Instrument Procedures Handbook FAA-H-8261-1 Revised 2004;
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/

Downloading that one now.

> And finally, lots of goodies to be found in the regulations (you
> might want to start with Chapters 1, 61 and 91 of the regulations,
> and read pretty much everything in the AIM):
>
> 2005 14 CFR (FAR) and AIM;
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/
> http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

I've read some of this before, but not in depth.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Most airports have published pattern map though which every pilot is
> supposed to read before landing there.

Which documents are these? I looked at airnav.com, but I see only
departure and arrival plates that do not appear to mention patterns.

> See and avoid, gazing out the window; the fact that everyone is
> supposed to be somewhere in the pattern helps you, because you know
> where to look for other planes at all. If airplanes were to be expected
> at any altitude or direction, it would be complete chaos and risk of
> collisions would rise; the pattern rule helps to avoid this. Calling
> out one's own position on the airfield's published frequency in regular
> intervals, and listening to other pilot's position reports also helps.
> Speed differences aren't really that bad.

I have a hard time finding other traffic in the sim; I hope it is
easier in real life. Of course, turning one's head doesn't work very
well in simulation (PC simulation), but even when I look out the side
windows I don't always see the traffic where ATC tells me to look for
it.

> In theory you're supposed to enter/leave the pattern into/out of the
> downwind leg (the 45 degree rule mentioned on wikipedia is a US
> specific thing AFAIK). In practice pilots often do only the crosswind
> or base, and sometimes they even do a straight in landing (which is
> considered impolite when there are other pilots in the pattern; but
> when there's nobody around what the heck ..).

So what prevents planes from colliding with each other when they are
circling the airport so that they can enter the pattern at the right
spot?

Traditionally I've been aligning with the assigned runway from quite a
distance away, so that I'm already coming straight in by the time I'm
close to the airport. If I have to enter a complicated pattern each
time I approach, it's going to make things a lot more difficult. The
sim's ATC always approves me for a straight-in approach, but perhaps
that is because I prefer to use ILS approaches. I've gotten
instructions for "right downwind" and stuff like that occasionally,
but I haven't paid much attention to them up to now ("now" meaning
since I've bought a joystick).

> Full patterns are normally only flown when training take-offs and
> landings.

If I had a big airport nearby I'd look for them. The airports here
are way outside town, however.

A single nautical mile seems really short for the legs if there are
jets in the pattern. Even a tiny plane could cover that in less than
30 seconds.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Here in the states my cross wind varies from about a city block to
> nearly a mile depending on what I'm flying and how bad I want to scare
> my passengers.

Doesn't everyone in the pattern have to fly legs of the same length?

> A light jet is going to make a one mile base seem pretty short.

If the jet flies longer legs than you do, doesn't that mean that you
have traffic merging into your path at several points in the pattern,
particularly on final?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Stubby wrote:
> All you question will be answered if you buy a copy of FAR/AIM.
> "Federal Aviation Regulations / Airman's Information Manual"

In other words,

READ THE ****IN' MANUAL !!!

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If the jet flies longer legs than you do, doesn't that mean that you
> have traffic merging into your path at several points in the pattern,
> particularly on final?

that's the fun of it :-) it all boils down to see and avoid; I have
flown in an uncontrolled field with two crossing runways, often used
simultaneously (well, not quite simultaneously but close) where
everything operates from gliders to jets, warbirds, ultralights,
sky divers, you name it. It never gets boring :-)

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> that's the fun of it :-) it all boils down to see and avoid ...

I don't know that I'd consider avoiding an accident fun; but I suppose
it prevents one from dozing off.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> Here in the states my cross wind varies from about a city block to
>> nearly a mile depending on what I'm flying and how bad I want to
>> scare my passengers.
>
> Doesn't everyone in the pattern have to fly legs of the same length?
>
No.

>> A light jet is going to make a one mile base seem pretty short.
>
> If the jet flies longer legs than you do, doesn't that mean that you
> have traffic merging into your path at several points in the pattern,
> particularly on final?
>
No.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> It is, but not a lot easier until you get closer.

But getting closer is a Bad Thing, isn't it?

This made me think of something else: How many pilots carry
binoculars with them in the cockpit? Seems like they might be useful
in some circumstances, although obviously flying with one hand on the
yoke and another on the binoculars might not always be practical. It
would ease looking for traffic, and would make it easier to identify
landmarks below from a greater distance for VFR flight.

> Patterns are defined only loosely. Different speeds are used by
> different aircraft or the same aircraft at different times.
> Turn locations, turn rate, distance of the legs from the
> runway all vary by aircraft and from time to time. The
> general idea for non-towered airports is to let the aircraft
> space themselves and be able to merge together safely. A
> pattern is not even technically required, but most pilots
> fly one.

I guess you can space from traffic in front of you or on either side,
but what about traffic behind you? It seems that aircraft have rather
large blind spots as visibility goes.

Also, if you're a big jet and you have a tiny prop aircraft in front
of you, what if you can't slow down enough to avoid overtaking him?

> Altitude of the pattern, which may be different for high
> speed aircraft or jets.
>
> Direction of turns - left or right.
>
> Sometimes there are published noise abatement procedures,
> wind speed/direction or runway slope comments that affect
> the direction or positioning of the pattern.

Does noise abatement apply to everyone, or just jets? (I think I
asked this elsewhere, but I don't recall seeing a reply.)

> This stuff is in the airport facility directory. Places
> like airnav.com and landings.com also have this info.

Can I download the airport directory in PDF?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> This made me think of something else: How many pilots carry
> binoculars with them in the cockpit?

I tried as a passenger and it is a *bad* idea for a number
of reasons: very narrow field of vision, it is very
difficult to actually find what you are looking for; shaking,
the aircraft moves and vibrates and shakes; blurs what
you see and can get you hurt as well (binoculars hitting
you hard in the eyes :-) -- and, it is a sure way for
a passenger to get air sick (even someone who is used
to flying);

> Can I download the airport directory in PDF?

there are a number of places on the web where you can
download approach plates and airport diagrams; for
instance:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/ and click on the 'free online
product' on the left; AOPA also has something like that
but I don't remember if it is in the public or members
only section of their website;

another source of charts, airport diagrams, etc. for
simmers is your local flying club / airport: these
publication have an expiration date and have to be
renewed often, and are most of the time just thrown
away; if you tell your local pilots that you'd be happy
to recycle these publication to use on a sim I am sure
they'd be happy to oblige.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

to be fair, long straight in approaches in VFR are not uncommon
in controlled airfields, it helps getting people in and out
more effectively -- but then, the controller gets people out
of each others' way. It is in uncontrolled airfields that
things become more interesting :-) especially in the presence
of both VFR and IFR traffic (there are IFR approaches on
non controlled airfields)

--Sylvain

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> This sounds like you're not quite clear on the distinction between IFR
> and VFR. They're essentially like alien planets. Coming straight in and
> obeying ATC instructions is the IFR way of doing things. In the VFR
> world, pilots decide themselves what they do (as a general rule, there
> are exceptions), and they are supposed to fly the traffic pattern when
> approaching or departing. I don't know enough about MSFS so I can't
> tell how to switch it into VFR mode, but your description sounds like
> you're in IFR mode.

[Margy Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t writes:
>
>
>>It is, but not a lot easier until you get closer.
>
>
> But getting closer is a Bad Thing, isn't it?
>
> This made me think of something else: How many pilots carry
> binoculars with them in the cockpit? Seems like they might be useful
> in some circumstances, although obviously flying with one hand on the
> yoke and another on the binoculars might not always be practical. It
> would ease looking for traffic, and would make it easier to identify
> landmarks below from a greater distance for VFR flight.
>
AGH!!!!! I can't stand this anymore!!! I was not going to feed the
troll, but I can't take it. If I need @#$%& binoculars to see the
frigging traffic I don't have to worry about it. Damn, if a car (10
miles away) is travelling at ... Come on Mxsmanic, buy 1 hour of
flight time (give up eating for a week if you have to) and then come and
ask questions!

Margy
>
>>Patterns are defined only loosely. Different speeds are used by
>>different aircraft or the same aircraft at different times.
>>Turn locations, turn rate, distance of the legs from the
>>runway all vary by aircraft and from time to time. The
>>general idea for non-towered airports is to let the aircraft
>>space themselves and be able to merge together safely. A
>>pattern is not even technically required, but most pilots
>>fly one.
>
>
> I guess you can space from traffic in front of you or on either side,
> but what about traffic behind you? It seems that aircraft have rather
> large blind spots as visibility goes.
>
> Also, if you're a big jet and you have a tiny prop aircraft in front
> of you, what if you can't slow down enough to avoid overtaking him?
>
>
>>Altitude of the pattern, which may be different for high
>>speed aircraft or jets.
>>
>>Direction of turns - left or right.
>>
>>Sometimes there are published noise abatement procedures,
>>wind speed/direction or runway slope comments that affect
>>the direction or positioning of the pattern.
>
>
> Does noise abatement apply to everyone, or just jets? (I think I
> asked this elsewhere, but I don't recall seeing a reply.)
>
>
>>This stuff is in the airport facility directory. Places
>>like airnav.com and landings.com also have this info.
>
>
> Can I download the airport directory in PDF?
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:06:32 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Sylvain writes:
>
>> that's the fun of it :-) it all boils down to see and avoid ...
>
>I don't know that I'd consider avoiding an accident fun; but I suppose

It sure beats not avoiding one!

>it prevents one from dozing off.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:13:40 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>T o d d P a t t i s t writes:
>
>> It is, but not a lot easier until you get closer.
>
>But getting closer is a Bad Thing, isn't it?

Closer to the airport.

>
>This made me think of something else: How many pilots carry
>binoculars with them in the cockpit? Seems like they might be useful

Ahhh...Think I'll pass on that one. Ever use binocs when bounding
around. A friend and I were Salmon fishing on Lake Michigan quite a
few years back This was in a 16' Aluminum boat. It was a pretty
rough day, but he wanted to take a look through the binoculars. He
lasted about 30 seconds, began to perspire and jammed the binocs back
into the case with the comment: "Boy! It wouldn't take much of that to
make a guy sick!"

>in some circumstances, although obviously flying with one hand on the
>yoke and another on the binoculars might not always be practical. It
>would ease looking for traffic, and would make it easier to identify
>landmarks below from a greater distance for VFR flight.

Aircraft are relatively easy to see "most of the time" when in the
pattern and particularly if they are all going the same way or
following the same route.

Here, VFR traffic fly's the pattern, but the VOR approach comes in at
half the pattern altitude and on a heading of 137 degrees. which
sometimes surprises the unwary, but most try to make sure every one
knows where they are at all times.


>
>> Patterns are defined only loosely. Different speeds are used by
>> different aircraft or the same aircraft at different times.
>> Turn locations, turn rate, distance of the legs from the
>> runway all vary by aircraft and from time to time. The
>> general idea for non-towered airports is to let the aircraft
>> space themselves and be able to merge together safely. A
>> pattern is not even technically required, but most pilots
>> fly one.
>
>I guess you can space from traffic in front of you or on either side,
>but what about traffic behind you? It seems that aircraft have rather
>large blind spots as visibility goes.

Most have pretty good visibility straight ahead. For many of us a lot
of pattern flying can lead to a stiff neck from looking for traffic.
Plus we learn to make slight and shallow turns (s-turns) to look for
traffic in all sectors.
>
>Also, if you're a big jet and you have a tiny prop aircraft in front
>of you, what if you can't slow down enough to avoid overtaking him?
>
Another good reason the jets fly a wider pattern and higher pattern.

>> Altitude of the pattern, which may be different for high
>> speed aircraft or jets.
>>
>> Direction of turns - left or right.
>>
>> Sometimes there are published noise abatement procedures,
>> wind speed/direction or runway slope comments that affect
>> the direction or positioning of the pattern.
>
>Does noise abatement apply to everyone, or just jets? (I think I
>asked this elsewhere, but I don't recall seeing a reply.)

Normally it applies to every one, but it may apply in a different
manner depending on the size and speed of the aircraft.
>
>> This stuff is in the airport facility directory. Places
>> like airnav.com and landings.com also have this info.

The AFD is a really important source of information. That and now
days it's often a good idea to call the number in the AFD to see in
they have any procedures you need to follow.

>
>Can I download the airport directory in PDF?

I don't know of any, but they are widely available for less than $5.00
USD "I believe". I keep the AFDs, approach charts, low altitude
charts (IFR) and VFR sectionals for all the areas in which I fly.

You can order one along with charts from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" on
line. The online services I use require you be a paying member.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> ... if you tell your local pilots that you'd be happy
> to recycle these publication to use on a sim I am sure
> they'd be happy to oblige.

Not if they're from this newsgroup.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The traffic patterns are published nationally, but kinda standardised
> in a document called "AIP VFR" which is available on the net in some
> countries, but has to be paid for in some others. I doesn't look like
> airnav.com has any, but here are some European ones:
>
> France http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/html/frameset_aip_fr.htm
> (The form labelled "Accès rapide ...")
>
> Germany http://www.airports.de/index.php?option=com_dbquery&Itemid=67
> (not official but almost as good)

Thanks for the pointers, although right now I prefer to avoid anything
European.

> This sounds like you're not quite clear on the distinction between IFR
> and VFR. They're essentially like alien planets. Coming straight in and
> obeying ATC instructions is the IFR way of doing things. In the VFR
> world, pilots decide themselves what they do (as a general rule, there
> are exceptions), and they are supposed to fly the traffic pattern when
> approaching or departing.

Sounds dangerous. Maybe that's why GA has so many more accidents. I
suppose it works if every pilot is very careful and vigilant, but if
one of them isn't ...

> I don't know enough about MSFS so I can't
> tell how to switch it into VFR mode, but your description sounds like
> you're in IFR mode.

It doesn't have modes per se; you just fly the aircraft as you choose.
However, it has a simulated ATC (of very limited scope) for IFR
flights, which I have traditionally used a lot. It lacks most of what
real ATC provides, but it does give instructions that must be
followed, which is a large part of IFR. To fly VFR, you just don't
use the ATC, or you use it only for simple clearances for take-off and
landing or through various classes of airspace (and in simulation the
clearances are pretty much always granted in VMC, so they aren't
hugely challenging).

Still, it's better than earlier versions, where you had no ATC at all.

> Chances are you won't see any pattern flying at big airports, because
> there IFR dominates. GA (which is mostly VFR) tends to avoid big
> airports, and if they do land there anyway they also obey ATC (this is
> one of the situations where even VFR does that) who may or may not
> instruct the VFR pilot to fly a pattern. If you want to see a typical
> VFR traffic pattern, visit a small GA airfield.

I used to live right next to a major airport, so I probably never saw
VFR patterns. I don't live near any airport these days, although I
noticed a lot of GA activity when I go to Versailles; I'm guessing it
comes from Toussus-le-Noble (LFPN), which I think has a lot of
training and GA business, but I'm not sure.

> Could be, but why is that a problem?

Thirty seconds doesn't seem like very long to complete a leg,
especially when turns alone make take longer than that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> to be fair, long straight in approaches in VFR are not uncommon
> in controlled airfields, it helps getting people in and out
> more effectively -- but then, the controller gets people out
> of each others' way. It is in uncontrolled airfields that
> things become more interesting :-) especially in the presence
> of both VFR and IFR traffic (there are IFR approaches on
> non controlled airfields)

Does VFR traffic always have the option of a straight-in approach?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> This sounds like you're not quite clear on the distinction between IFR
> and VFR. They're essentially like alien planets. Coming straight in and
> obeying ATC instructions is the IFR way of doing things. In the VFR
> world, pilots decide themselves what they do (as a general rule, there
> are exceptions), and they are supposed to fly the traffic pattern when
> approaching or departing. I don't know enough about MSFS so I can't
> tell how to switch it into VFR mode, but your description sounds like
> you're in IFR mode.

Uh, no, that's not it at all.

There are several different distinctions in play here. In short, IFR
(instrument flight rules) is a set of regulations by which ATC keeps you
away from aluminum when you can't do it yourself (such as in a cloud).
Because of this, you can enter cloud when IFR. ATC is generally
required for IFR flight (although there are places you can just take
your chances).

VFR is a set of regulations by which you may not enter cloud or low
visiblity, and in fact have to stay certain distances away from clouds.
You are responsible for separating yourself from aluminum, and you do
it visually. ATC is not =inherenly= required for VFR flight, only
eyeballs are.

Now, more to the point, airports are either "towered" or "non-towered"
(this used to be called "controlled" and "uncontrolled", but somehow the
general public looks askance at "pilots out of control", so they changed
the wording).

At a towered airport, the control tower issues instructions whose
intentions are to keep aircraft separated on the ground, and to sequence
them properly to and from the ground (takeoff and landing).
Instructions must be followed except in emergency, though they may be
questioned and clarified, should that be necessary.

At a non-towered airport, nobody issues instructions. Pilots separate
themselves by looking out the window, and sometimes by reporting their
positions and intentions on the radio for all to hear.

There are traffic patterns at both kinds of airports, and they are
pretty similar.

If weather conditions require flight in the vincinity of a non-towered
airport to be under IFR, then VFR traffic won't (or rather, shouldn't)
exist there at the time, and the IFR flight can arrive or depart even if
there is cloud. Sometimes IFR is required to get near the airport, but
the ceiling is high enough so that VFR flight can still occur down
below. It is up to everyone (including the IFR flight, when it emerges
from cloud) to watch out. Generally, since VFR traffic can't go "near"
the cloud, there is ample time to see and avoid.

The same is true for a towered airport, except that the IFR flight will
be handed off to the tower for sequencing instructions.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Does VFR traffic always have the option of a straight-in approach?
>

in a controlled airport, you can always ask nicely and
the controller might let you do (straight in, directly
into base, overhead) whatever you fancy (within reason,
traffic allowing, etc.); in an uncontrolled airport,
you join the prescribed traffic pattern (and you keep
your eyes opened)

The key is to avoid surprises and behave in a way which
is as predictable as possible.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> Ahhh...Think I'll pass on that one. Ever use binocs when bounding
> around. A friend and I were Salmon fishing on Lake Michigan quite a
> few years back This was in a 16' Aluminum boat. It was a pretty
> rough day, but he wanted to take a look through the binoculars. He
> lasted about 30 seconds, began to perspire and jammed the binocs back
> into the case with the comment: "Boy! It wouldn't take much of that to
> make a guy sick!"

The movement had not occurred to me; small planes must move a lot.
Controllers seem to always have binoculars at hand, so I thought
perhaps pilots would, too.

> Most have pretty good visibility straight ahead. For many of us a lot
> of pattern flying can lead to a stiff neck from looking for traffic.
> Plus we learn to make slight and shallow turns (s-turns) to look for
> traffic in all sectors.

Don't shallow turns cause you to stray from the pattern?

> Normally it applies to every one, but it may apply in a different
> manner depending on the size and speed of the aircraft.

What happens if you fail to observe noise-abatement procedures?

> I don't know of any, but they are widely available for less than $5.00
> USD "I believe".

Not in France, I'm afraid.

> You can order one along with charts from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" on
> line. The online services I use require you be a paying member.

I don't have a working credit card, but I'll keep that in mind.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Why?

Since it requires so much effort to learn how to fly in the first
place, I prefer to learn based on the rules of the country that is the
most advanced in aviation, and that is the U.S. The 1001 exceptions
of the European tribes are just background noise.

> Why?

Because it depends on individuals keeping their eyes open, being alert
and disciplined. Some pilots are always that way, but some aren't.
Given how hard it seems to be to get a PPL, I'm surprised by how
incompetent some pilots apparently are. How did they ever manage to
get a license?

> The risk more or less comparable with driving.

That's a pretty high risk!

> There are several different reasons why there's a higher risk than
> with airliners, but you make it sound more dangerous than it is.

The numbers make it look awfully dangerous. Not so much in an empty
sky, perhaps, but when there are other aircraft around, particularly
other GA aircraft, the risk skyrockets.

> VFR procedures as such are not really risky, there are other reasons
> that come to mind.

Such as?

One that I can think of is the use of reciprocating
internal-combustion engines, which are vastly less reliable than
turbines.

> Same with cars, but that doesn't seem to scare a lot of people away
> from driving.

The risks don't scare a lot of people away from flying, either. I'm
quite sure there are plenty of private pilots who regularly take
foolish risks, and only survive out of luck.

> In the air you have the added security that hitting each
> other in three-dimensional space is much less likely than on the narrow
> space of a road. It's probably quite hard to hit a moving target in the
> air even if you try intentionally.

I've tried it in the sim. It's very difficult.

The flip side is that hitting someone in the air is much more likely
to kill you than hitting someone on the ground. A fender-bender on
the ground may result in a high-speed crash when it happens between
aircraft aloft.

> A turn in a small plane is a matter of seconds. Half a minute is long
> enough e.g. for a final if you're already low (say 500 ft GND, which is
> a good idea for the altitude you should have at the last turn in small
> planes).

Aren't standard turns supposed to be lined up with that two-minute
marker on the turn indicator? That would correspond to 90° turns in
30 seconds, if I'm not mistaken.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> How is that different from IFR?

In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft. You
have help from controllers.

> In the real world, mid-airs are only a tiny fraction of aviation
> accidents.

True. Unfortunately, equipment failures are much more deadly than on
the road.

> They certainly scare more people.

People who are afraid of flying suffer from irrational fears that are
out of proportion with the actual risk.

> OTOH there are private pilots with fear of flying.

So why do they become private pilots? Are they anything like
hypochondriacs who decide to become doctors?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> ... if you tell your local pilots that you'd be happy
>> to recycle these publication to use on a sim I am sure
>> they'd be happy to oblige.
>
> Not if they're from this newsgroup.
>
Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.

I'm not trolling, I'm serious. I don't know what it is about USENET,
but sometimes sifting through the losers to find people who can
actually sustain an intelligent discussion is exceedingly difficult.

On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
(the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
themselves, no more and no less). On the other, I have the kiddies in
sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
between.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Be fair, I wrote nothing which contradicts what you said (and I agree
> with most of it).

No, nothing contradicts it. It just seemed to imply that the IFR/VFR
response related to the towered/notowred question.

> Keep in mind I'm writing from a European perspective.

Ok, that makes a difference, but one of correlation, not of causation.

> Over here, IFR at uncontrolled airports is impossible, because such
> airports are normally surrounded by VFR-only airspace

Interesting. It's sort of the opposite here in the colonies. (FSVO
"opposite")

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
> to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
> (the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
> themselves, no more and no less). On the other, I have the kiddies in
> sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
> box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
> between.


It must be difficult for you.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

> It must be difficult for you.

It is.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.
>
> I'm not trolling, I'm serious. I don't know what it is about USENET,
> but sometimes sifting through the losers to find people who can
> actually sustain an intelligent discussion is exceedingly difficult.
>
> On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
> to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
> (the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
> themselves, no more and no less).
>
You can't seriously believe that this describes the people who have
responded to your questions in this ng. Every one of your questions has
been responded to with courtesy and facts by at least one or two people.
Even though the majority of your questions could be answered by a couple
of hours of flight lessons, you have still received courteous and factual
responses for the most part. The only variances from this that I've seen
are from those who get frustrated by your refusal to appreciate those
factual answers.

> On the other, I have the kiddies in
> sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
> box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
> between.
>
I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the level-headed
responses that you've received here. If anything, your claim is far from
level-headed, given the proportion of respectful, factual responses vs.
anything else, so, again, this appears as nothing more than a troll, and
having "known" you from other ngs for years, I'm sorry to see you sink to
this.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You can't seriously believe that this describes the people who have
> responded to your questions in this ng.

It describes those whose replies amounted to personal attacks.
Obviously, it does not describe those who provided rational answers,
but unfortunately this latter group is somewhat of a minority.

> Every one of your questions has been responded to with courtesy and
> facts by at least one or two people.

Yes, while being ridiculed by a dozen others. The high end of the
bell curve is small.

> I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the level-headed
> responses that you've received here. If anything, your claim is far from
> level-headed, given the proportion of respectful, factual responses vs.
> anything else, so, again, this appears as nothing more than a troll, and
> having "known" you from other ngs for years, I'm sorry to see you sink to
> this.

Read my posts carefully.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:03:50 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Roger writes:
>
>> Ahhh...Think I'll pass on that one. Ever use binocs when bounding
>> around. A friend and I were Salmon fishing on Lake Michigan quite a
>> few years back This was in a 16' Aluminum boat. It was a pretty
>> rough day, but he wanted to take a look through the binoculars. He
>> lasted about 30 seconds, began to perspire and jammed the binocs back
>> into the case with the comment: "Boy! It wouldn't take much of that to
>> make a guy sick!"
>
>The movement had not occurred to me; small planes must move a lot.
>Controllers seem to always have binoculars at hand, so I thought
>perhaps pilots would, too.

Even using binocs in a relatively large plane can turn those not used
to them, green in a hurry. It doesn't take much movement where you
eyes and other senses don't agree to quickly put your head in a "lunch
bag"
>
>> Most have pretty good visibility straight ahead. For many of us a lot
>> of pattern flying can lead to a stiff neck from looking for traffic.
>> Plus we learn to make slight and shallow turns (s-turns) to look for
>> traffic in all sectors.
>
>Don't shallow turns cause you to stray from the pattern?
>
You are gently rolling into alternating left and right turns of only a
few degrees so it has little effect on your heading.

>> Normally it applies to every one, but it may apply in a different
>> manner depending on the size and speed of the aircraft.
>
>What happens if you fail to observe noise-abatement procedures?

You could receive a fine which might be substantial.
>
>> I don't know of any, but they are widely available for less than $5.00
>> USD "I believe".
>
>Not in France, I'm afraid.

They'll probably ship, but I don't know what good they'd be in that
case. <:-))
>
>> You can order one along with charts from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" on
>> line. The online services I use require you be a paying member.
>
>I don't have a working credit card, but I'll keep that in mind.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> It must be difficult for you.

So difficult that I'm surprised he doesn't surrender to the futility of it
all and kill himself... Hell, he's in France, so the first part should be
pretty easy for him... For the second part, well, maybe death by Camembert?

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> They'll probably ship, but I don't know what good they'd be in that
> case.

Research. However, I can't buy anything over the Internet because
credit cards are the only form of payment.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You can't seriously believe that this describes the people who have
>> responded to your questions in this ng.
>
> It describes those whose replies amounted to personal attacks.
> Obviously, it does not describe those who provided rational answers,
> but unfortunately this latter group is somewhat of a minority.
>
You received a "rational answer" to every question that you asked. That
should have ended your interaction for the thread. It is your persistence
that you have some knowledge that supercedes our information and
experience that gets you "personally attacked", and by my count those
responses are in the minority.

>> Every one of your questions has been responded to with courtesy and
>> facts by at least one or two people.
>
> Yes, while being ridiculed by a dozen others.
>
That is not the count that I see in response to your questions. As I said,
the courteous, factual answers that you have been given should have been
sufficient to end the thread. Your decision to argue those answers is what
got you ridiculed, and not by "a dozen others".

>> I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the level-headed
>> responses that you've received here. If anything, your claim is far
>> from level-headed, given the proportion of respectful, factual
>> responses vs. anything else, so, again, this appears as nothing more
>> than a troll, and having "known" you from other ngs for years, I'm
>> sorry to see you sink to this.
>
> Read my posts carefully.
>
I have. Perhaps you should re-evaluate both your own posts and the
responses that you got carefully.

Neil

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft.

Wrong.

Stefan

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft.

Usually, the controllers only separate you from other IFR aircraft. But you
can have good VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) visibility when flying
under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), in which case you do have to look out
the window to avoid other (VFR) aircraft, even though you're flying IFR.

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> How is that different from IFR?
>
> In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft. You
> have help from controllers.
>
Wrong. That idea can get you killed. How did you arrive at that
information?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> Since it requires so much effort to learn how to fly in the first
> place, I prefer to learn based on the rules of the country that is the
> most advanced in aviation, and that is the U.S. The 1001 exceptions
> of the European tribes are just background noise.
>
This is a troll, and does not reflect the facts in any way.

> Given how hard it seems to be to get a PPL, I'm surprised by how
> incompetent some pilots apparently are. How did they ever manage to
> get a license?
>
This is a troll, and does not reflect the facts in any way. Perhaps you
should try to qualify to take flying lessons before you make such
statements. By the time you're ready for your check ride, this notion will
be pretty much eliminated.

> The numbers make it look awfully dangerous. Not so much in an empty
> sky, perhaps, but when there are other aircraft around, particularly
> other GA aircraft, the risk skyrockets.
>
This does not reflect the facts.

If you wonder why you get ridiculed by some responders, the above should
be enlightening.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

Yanno Mx, maybe you should get a flight instructor to give you a lesson
in your =simulator=. You wouldn't have to actually fly, but one hour
with a real live flight instructor and your sim may help you understand
a lot, and also get you out of whatever bad habits you've picked up.
Learning to fly without an instructor, whether on a sim or in real life,
will allow you to pick up bad habits and incorrect information, and get
it ingrained before you can learn otherwise.

Give it a shot. A real instructor with your simulated airplane.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> They'll probably ship, but I don't know what good they'd be in that
>> case.
>
> Research. However, I can't buy anything over the Internet because
> credit cards are the only form of payment.
>

Wrong. There are other ways to pay over the internet.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Wrong. There are other ways to pay over the internet.

Such as?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Wrong.

By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
out the window. ATC provides separation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Yanno Mx, maybe you should get a flight instructor to give you a lesson
> in your =simulator=.

I don't know if any flight instructor would condescend to work with a
mere simulator. Besides, nobody would do it for free, and I have no
money.

> You wouldn't have to actually fly, but one hour
> with a real live flight instructor and your sim may help you understand
> a lot, and also get you out of whatever bad habits you've picked up.

I agree, but it's not likely to happen, I'm afraid.

> Learning to fly without an instructor, whether on a sim or in real life,
> will allow you to pick up bad habits and incorrect information, and get
> it ingrained before you can learn otherwise.

Not if I do enough research, which is what I'm trying to do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Stefan writes:
>
>> Wrong.
>
> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.

not quite. ok, let's recapitulate: you must understand the
following definitions:

VMC: visual meterological condition
IMC: instrument meterological condition
VFR: visual flight rules
IFR: instrument flight rules

(See definitions in chapter one of the regulations); and
the possible combinations, i.e., you can fly IFR in either
VMC or IMC, but you can only fly VFR in VMC.

When you are in VMC, regardless of the set of rules you
are flying under, you look out of the window, and you
are responsible to 'see and avoid', see chapter 5-5-8 of
the AIM.

--Sylvain

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stefan writes:
>
>> Wrong.
>
> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.

As you have been told before this is absolutely wrong. Hopefully no current
or future pilots believe your totally inaccurate statements of which there
are many.

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

>> Wrong.

> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.

Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Thanks. I found something call the Aeronautical Information Manual,
> which looks like it might be the same thing (?).
>
> I had previously downloaded the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical
> Knowledge, but it didn't seem to cover these things. I have the
> Instrument Flying Handbook, also, although I assumed that the patterns
> under discussion here were specific to VFR (?).
>

And after you've read those, read the corresponding ICAO documents and
you'll see how much France does things without exceptions and the US
has tons.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Wolfgang,

Don't argue with him, he is a first-class troll in the disguise of a
harmless simmer.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft.
>

You couldn't be more wrong. Whenever the weather is VMC, in most
airspace, you as IFR traffic have to provide separation from VFR
traffic, not the controller. The only way you can do that is by looking
out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Wolfgang,

> Over here, IFR at uncontrolled airports is impossible, because such
> airports are normally surrounded by VFR-only airspace (ICAO G here in
> Germany, this varies from country to country). Some exceptions to this
> rule exist, I'll not go into them for the sake of brevity.
>

Actually, only in Germany, and it is one of the more grave (and
unnecessary and stupid) violations of ICAO rules. ICAO does not prohibit
IFR in class G. German regulation does. IFR in Class G is completely
normal in Europe outside Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Stefan writes:
>
>> Wrong.
>
> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.
>
Wrong.

I really wish you would stop spreading misinformation in the newsgroup.
There are other visitors who really do want to learn, and constantly
correcting your misinformation is an abuse of the time of those who are
willing to help.

Neil

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stefan writes:
>
> > Wrong.
>
> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.

By 'what' definintion?

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> Over here, IFR at uncontrolled airports is impossible, because such

> Actually, only in Germany, and it is one of the more grave (and
> unnecessary and stupid) violations of ICAO rules. ICAO does not prohibit
> IFR in class G. German regulation does. IFR in Class G is completely
> normal in Europe outside Germany.

Actually no, twice no.

1. Germany has a couple of class F airports. Last I've read the ICAO
definitions, class F was still uncontrolled.

2. There is no IFR in class G in Switzerland, either. Ok, It could be
argued whether Switzerland really belongs to Europe.

Besides, it can be argued whether IFR in class G is a good thing,
especially considering the airspace structure of Germany. Glider pilots
tend to have a different opinion on this than power pilots.

Stefan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jose writes:
>
>> Yanno Mx, maybe you should get a flight instructor to give you a lesson
>> in your =simulator=.
>
> I don't know if any flight instructor would condescend to work with a
> mere simulator. Besides, nobody would do it for free, and I have no
> money.


The reason you have no money is that you spend your time here. Have you
considered getting a job? A real one; not a simulated one?

It's amazing how much easier it is to pay the bills when you work. Surely
McDonald's could use a man of your obvious intellect and skills?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.
>
> I'm not trolling, I'm serious. I don't know what it is about USENET,
> but sometimes sifting through the losers to find people who can
> actually sustain an intelligent discussion is exceedingly difficult.
>
> On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
> to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
> (the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
> themselves, no more and no less). On the other, I have the kiddies in
> sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
> box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
> between.
>

So you have two very different groups of people that think you are a twit.
Is it possible that they are both correct?

And to say that the folks at RFP cannot condescend to speak to you is pretty
much disproved by simply looking back over the last few weeks of postings.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And after you've read those, read the corresponding ICAO documents and
> you'll see how much France does things without exceptions and the US
> has tons.

Nevertheless, I'd prefer to do it the US way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So you have two very different groups of people that think you are a twit.
> Is it possible that they are both correct?

Yes, but it is not probable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> By 'what' definintion?

You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
separation. You can't see anything in IMC (the ostensible reason for
flying IFR), so how else are you going to maintain separation?

If you see another a/c out the window, fine, but the idea of IFR is to
make flight safe even if you can't see anything out the window.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You couldn't be more wrong. Whenever the weather is VMC, in most
> airspace, you as IFR traffic have to provide separation from VFR
> traffic, not the controller.

Only if you have the traffic in sight, IIRC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

> The reason you have no money is that you spend your time here.

No, the reasons are more complex than that, and I won't go into them
here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Actually, only in Germany, and it is one of the more grave (and
> unnecessary and stupid) violations of ICAO rules. ICAO does not prohibit
> IFR in class G. German regulation does. IFR in Class G is completely
> normal in Europe outside Germany.

"In Germany, anything not permitted is forbidden."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:40:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. Whenever the weather is VMC, in most
>> airspace, you as IFR traffic have to provide separation from VFR
>> traffic, not the controller.
>
>Only if you have the traffic in sight, IIRC.

I've had ATC call out traffic when I was IFR and ask if I had traffic
in sight. I had to report back that I was in cloud and couldn't see
anything. That was a sufficient answer. I've had other situations when
ATC would call out traffic while I was IFR and I could and did report
the traffic in sight. IFR is just that way.

The material difference between IFR and VFR is that when you're VFR
and you see a cloud, you have to deviate around it. When you're IFR
and you see a cloud you can just punch through it. Under either set of
rules, the pilot has the same responsibility for not crashing into
things.

Controllers sometimes seem to breathe a sigh of relief that you can
almost hear through the radio when you report traffic in sight. It's
like you've relieved them of a great burden. It's not a burden that
the pilot should accept lightly.

RK Henry

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> By 'what' definintion?
>
> You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
> separation. You can't see anything in IMC (the ostensible reason for
> flying IFR), so how else are you going to maintain separation?
>
Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.

> If you see another a/c out the window, fine, but the idea of IFR is to
> make flight safe even if you can't see anything out the window.
>
Wrong.

Neil

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Mxsmanic schrieb:
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>
>> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
>> out the window. ATC provides separation.
>
>
> Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

Irrelavant for IFR flying.

[Stefan]

Newps schrieb:

>>> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
>>> out the window. ATC provides separation.

>> Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.

> Irrelavant for IFR flying.

Very relevant for separation provided by ATC.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Newps > posted:

> Stefan wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic schrieb:
>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>
>>> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
>>> out the window. ATC provides separation.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.
>
> Irrelavant for IFR flying.
>
So... one can fly in Class A under what conditions, and how is that
irrelevant for IFR flying?

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
> out the window. ATC provides separation.
>

This kind of completely false statement from you is exactly what gets
you in trouble here. You have no idea what you are talking about from
your pathetic simming, yet you claim to know better than all the people
here that answer you courteously, explain things to you AND fly IFR in
real airplanes every other day.

But I'm quite sure you know all this. You're a troll.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Not if I do enough research, which is what I'm trying to do.
>

Good joke. Research "research", then come back and try again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> You follow their instructions, therefore they are providing
> separation.

No. They're not. Not from VFR aircraft, in most airspace.

> You can't see anything in IMC (the ostensible reason for
> flying IFR), so how else are you going to maintain separation?

An IFR flight often takes you through regions of good visibility. Other
aircraft may be flying VFR there. It is your responsibility to see and avoid
those aircraft; it is not ATC's responsibility to separate you from them.

But we've already explained this to you, and you've ignored the information.
You've also evidently refused to read the relevant sections of the FAA's
Aeronautical Information Manual, Instrument Flying Handbook, or the FARs.
These reference sources, which contradict most of what you post here, are
freely available online, as has been pointed out to you.

Like others here, I've tried hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. But
your persistent willful ignorance convinces me that you are not here for any
honest or friendly purpose.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.

But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
irrespective of actual conditions.

> Wrong.

If it's wrong, then all IFR flights in IMC are unsafe, which defeats
the purpose of IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> I've had ATC call out traffic when I was IFR and ask if I had traffic
> in sight. I had to report back that I was in cloud and couldn't see
> anything. That was a sufficient answer. I've had other situations when
> ATC would call out traffic while I was IFR and I could and did report
> the traffic in sight. IFR is just that way.

Once you acknowledge traffic in sight, separation is your
responsibility.

> Controllers sometimes seem to breathe a sigh of relief that you can
> almost hear through the radio when you report traffic in sight. It's
> like you've relieved them of a great burden.

It's not _like_ that; you _have_ relieved them of a great burden,
since you've just assumed responsibility for maintaining separation.

> It's not a burden that the pilot should accept lightly.

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
> irrespective of actual conditions.

You are totally making that up. What motivates you to do so?

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
> irrespective of actual conditions.

As others have attempted to explain to you, you are incorrect. Here's
the applicable FAA rule[1]:

"§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight
rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless
well clear."

By the way, one reason you may be encountering enmity is that you
occasionally make absolute statements that are clearly false and
maintain them despite people telling you otherwise. You may want to
consider prefacing your statements with "I think" or "My understanding
is" or other qualifiers that indicate your statements may not be
accurate. This may help ease the enmity and allows you a psychological
"out" that allows you to correct yourself later without damaging one's
self image or ego. At least this is one (of several) rules I've adopted
that has worked "ok" for me over the years.

[1] http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e7c0a332a9b75c95a5ff7cd340b34df5&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&idno=14

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Most IFR flights are NOT in IMC.
>
> But IFR means that they are conducted as if they were in IMC,
> irrespective of actual conditions.
>
Wrong, yet again.

> If it's wrong, then all IFR flights in IMC are unsafe, which defeats
> the purpose of IFR.
>
There is much that you really don't understand at all. Better to ask
questions than make statements such as this.

Neil

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> RK Henry writes:
>
> > I've had ATC call out traffic when I was IFR and ask if I had traffic
> > in sight. I had to report back that I was in cloud and couldn't see
> > anything. That was a sufficient answer. I've had other situations when
> > ATC would call out traffic while I was IFR and I could and did report
> > the traffic in sight. IFR is just that way.
>
> Once you acknowledge traffic in sight, separation is your
> responsibility.

No, it is always (primarily) the pilot's responsiblity.

> > Controllers sometimes seem to breathe a sigh of relief that you can
> > almost hear through the radio when you report traffic in sight. It's
> > like you've relieved them of a great burden.
>
> It's not _like_ that; you _have_ relieved them of a great burden,
> since you've just assumed responsibility for maintaining separation.
>
> > It's not a burden that the pilot should accept lightly.
>
> Yes.

I still don't think you get the basics. The pilot always has the
primary responsibility for the aircraft, even when:
* IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that (in reality, listen
to other traffic and directions issued by controllers, and spot those
planes if close to be sure, that sorta thing).
* IFR in IMC - well the pilot's effectively blind, so yes faith exists
in the ATC system. Still have TCAS and the ability to hear instructions
issued to other a/c to possibly request clarification or warn the
controller they could be making a mistake.

When VFR, regardless of controlled airspace such as a CTR (control zone
around a controlled field) and under direction from Tower, the
responsibility is NOT the controllers for seperation (it's there aim,
but not there ultimate responsibility) it remains the pilot's
responsibility for seperation. The Tower folk basically just wanna get
aircraft on and off the ground in an expeditious manner - so while they
sequence aircraft to achieve that, the responsibility for seperation
remains the pilots of the planes.

--
Duncan

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
>
>> The reason you have no money is that you spend your time here.
>
> No, the reasons are more complex than that, and I won't go into them
> here.

McDonalds turned you down, eh

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> > Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.
>
> Irrelavant for IFR flying.
>

Oh? For my IFR flying it is pretty important to know what kind of
traffic ATC separates me from and what kind of traffic I have to look
out for myself. How and where does your IFR flying differ?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:48:51 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> I've had ATC call out traffic when I was IFR and ask if I had traffic
>> in sight. I had to report back that I was in cloud and couldn't see
>> anything. That was a sufficient answer. I've had other situations when
>> ATC would call out traffic while I was IFR and I could and did report
>> the traffic in sight. IFR is just that way.
>
>Once you acknowledge traffic in sight, separation is your
>responsibility.

Yes, but when that happens you're still IFR. The point we're all
trying to make here is that IFR, IMC, VFR, VMC are all completely
separable. You can fly IFR in IMC or in VMC. The fact that you're
operating under IFR has nothing to do with your see-and-avoid
responsibility.

Ok, look at it another way. It's often useful to make the general
assumption that the controller is either a screw-up or is trying to
kill you. When ATC cleared me on to the runway, I was taught to
quickly glance over and check the approach just in case the controller
made a mistake and cleared me in front of a landing plane. In fact
controllers DO make mistakes, as do pilots. So if you're IFR in VMC,
and you can see other airplanes, it's wiser to save your own butt by
looking for other airplanes than to blithely assume that the
controller is going do everything for you. Two or more pairs of eyes
is better.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> No, it is always (primarily) the pilot's responsiblity.

How can he avoid traffic that he cannot see?

> I still don't think you get the basics. The pilot always has the
> primary responsibility for the aircraft, even when:
> * IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
> lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that (in reality, listen
> to other traffic and directions issued by controllers, and spot those
> planes if close to be sure, that sorta thing).

If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Clonts]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > You couldn't be more wrong. Whenever the weather is VMC, in most
> > airspace, you as IFR traffic have to provide separation from VFR
> > traffic, not the controller.
>
> Only if you have the traffic in sight, IIRC.
>

Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
Thomas said).

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

>> * IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
>> lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that

> If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.

Take a glossary and look up VMC.

Stefan

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > No, it is always (primarily) the pilot's responsiblity.
>
> How can he avoid traffic that he cannot see?
>
> > I still don't think you get the basics. The pilot always has the
> > primary responsibility for the aircraft, even when:
> > * IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
> > lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that (in reality, listen
> > to other traffic and directions issued by controllers, and spot those
> > planes if close to be sure, that sorta thing).
>
> If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.


VMC means Visual Meteorological Conditions.

If he's in VMC, he can see the plane.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> * IFR in VMC -
> If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.

you didn't do your homework; I suggested that you look up the
definitions of IFR VFR IMC and VMC.

In VMC, you can see out of the window, regardless of the
set of rules under which you are flying; hence you are
responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic.

--Sylvain

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> Newps schrieb:
>
>>>> By definition, if you are flying by instruments, you aren't looking
>>>> out the window. ATC provides separation.
>
>
>>> Wrong. Read the airspace class definitions.
>
>
>> Irrelavant for IFR flying.
>
>
> Very relevant for separation provided by ATC.




No, it's not. You are always required to separate yourself from any
aircraft you can see.

[Newps]

Neil Gould wrote:


>>
>>Irrelavant for IFR flying.
>>
>
> So... one can fly in Class A under what conditions, and how is that
> irrelevant for IFR flying?

If you are IFR airspace classifications are irrelavent

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:


>
>
> Oh? For my IFR flying it is pretty important to know what kind of
> traffic ATC separates me from and what kind of traffic I have to look
> out for myself. How and where does your IFR flying differ?

You must separate yourself from all aircraft you can see. ATC may also
be doing the same thing.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> No, it is always (primarily) the pilot's responsiblity.
>
> How can he avoid traffic that he cannot see?
>
>> I still don't think you get the basics. The pilot always has the
>> primary responsibility for the aircraft, even when:
>> * IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
>> lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that (in reality,
>> listen to other traffic and directions issued by controllers, and
>> spot those planes if close to be sure, that sorta thing).
>
> If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.
>

For some reason, you persist in ignoring the "VMC". Just because you
are IFR does not mean that you can not see out the window.

You have made inane statements to the effect that when you are IFR you
don't have to look at anything but the instruments. That is patently
false.

The lastest issue of CALLBACK, the NASA ASRS publication, documents
this very dramatically with the description of a near miss between an
airliner and small aircraft. The airliner was IFR and did not get a call
out of traffice either from their TCAS or from ATC. You can read the story
at http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_321.htm Scroll to the
article "The Eyes Have It" and the following article "We Didn't Have the
Luxury of a TCAS RA". After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
you don't have to look out the window.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > No, it is always (primarily) the pilot's responsiblity.
>
> How can he avoid traffic that he cannot see?
>
> > I still don't think you get the basics. The pilot always has the
> > primary responsibility for the aircraft, even when:
> > * IFR in VMC - the responsibility still exists to maintain a vigilant
> > lookout and I'm sure all prudent pilots do just that (in reality, listen
> > to other traffic and directions issued by controllers, and spot those
> > planes if close to be sure, that sorta thing).
>
> If he cannot see the plane, no amount of vigilance will help him.

Sorry, I assumed the pilot would be awake and have eyes open.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Take a glossary and look up VMC.

C stands for conditions, R stands for rules.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> If he's in VMC, he can see the plane.

Only if he has 360° of vision in every visual plane, which is never
the case.

He may or may not be able to see the plane. If he cannot see it, he
cannot maintain separation from it without help, no matter how good a
pilot he is.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> In VMC, you can see out of the window, regardless of the
> set of rules under which you are flying; hence you are
> responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic.

Being able to see out the window is not the same as being able to see
every plane around you. If another aircraft is below and behind you,
you will not see it, no matter how nice the weather might be.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
> you don't have to look out the window.

Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Sorry, I assumed the pilot would be awake and have eyes open.

How does that help him to see a plane below and behind him?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Clonts writes:

> Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
> upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
> Thomas said).

The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see
> or visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

A pilot who acted according to your statement would be in violation of U.S.
Federal Aviation Regulation 91.113(b). It states:

"When weather conditions permit [i.e. VMC], regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules [IFR] or visual flight
rules [VFR], vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

In other words, if you as a pilot are flying under IFR through VMC, the
right-of-way rules require you to keep a visual watch for other aircraft.
If other aircraft are spotted that present a right-of-way conflict, you may
need to alter course if the other craft has the right-of-way as indicated
by the remainder of 91.113. I see no mention of "implicit agreement" in the
rules on this matter, nor any mention of "acknowledging visual contact".
Where are you getting your information?

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Being able to see out the window is not the same as being able to see
> every plane around you. If another aircraft is below and behind you,
> you will not see it, no matter how nice the weather might be.

but it still does not absolve you of your responsability to
see and avoid.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
> definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
> visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.
>

what you fail to understand is that when you fly in VMC, you
do share the airspace with other people who may fly VFR.

--Sylvain

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
>> you don't have to look out the window.
>
> Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window.
>

On Saturday, September 30, you stated "In IFR, you don't have to look
out the window for other aircraft. You have help from controllers."

On Sunday, October 1, you stated "By definition, if you are flying by
instruments, you aren't looking out the window. ATC provides separation."

You seem to continually igore the fact, even though many posters have
told it to you, including posting the pertinant FAA regulation, that even
if you are IFR, if you are in VMC, it is your resposibility to "see and
avoid" other aircraft. The controller may not be able to provide
separation in VMC or even issue a warning, as the ASRS article I pointed
out to you clearly documents.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> How does that help him to see a plane below and behind him?

Just avoid flying backwards.

[Jim Macklin]

Understanding all the rules, a system is present. Aircraft
operating under IFR rules fly certain cardinal altitudes,
at thousand foot intervals, while aircraft operating under
VFR fly a 500 feet above the altitude of the IFR aircraft.
All pilots are expected to look out of the windows, above,
below, front, sides and behind as much as possible. If you
are flying above 10,000 the speed limit is anything
subsonic. The airplane in trail is expected to see and
avoid the airplane in front. Airplanes that are head-on
should be at least 500 feet if one is IFR and the other is
VFR, or 1,000 if both are VFR or IFR. Crossing traffic can
be the most difficult because they can be at the same
altitude and a fast jet that is ten miles ahead and also ten
miles to the right or left may be hard to see since a
collision course is a relative motion of zero and the eye
sees motion.

Strobe lights work in the daylight hours too. Radar
advisories ,ay be available. And systems do work plane to
plane to alert traffic conflict, so in the low cost
airplane, run you Mode C, in the turbine airplanes, consider
getting the modern equipment.

Use the autopilot and look out the window more often.
Sightseeing is one of the reasons to fly.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in
message ...
| Mxsmanic > wrote in
| :
|
| > Marty Shapiro writes:
| >
| >> After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
| >> you don't have to look out the window.
| >
| > Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the
window.
| >
|
| On Saturday, September 30, you stated "In IFR, you
don't have to look
| out the window for other aircraft. You have help from
controllers."
|
| On Sunday, October 1, you stated "By definition, if you
are flying by
| instruments, you aren't looking out the window. ATC
provides separation."
|
| You seem to continually igore the fact, even though
many posters have
| told it to you, including posting the pertinant FAA
regulation, that even
| if you are IFR, if you are in VMC, it is your
resposibility to "see and
| avoid" other aircraft. The controller may not be able to
provide
| separation in VMC or even issue a warning, as the ASRS
article I pointed
| out to you clearly documents.
|
| --
| Marty Shapiro
| Silicon Rallye Inc.
|
| (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Sorry, I assumed the pilot would be awake and have eyes open.
>
> How does that help him to see a plane below and behind him?

It helps by seeing the planes that are not below or above or behind you
- that surely, is better than not looking at all. And fingers crossed,
the dude that (say for eg) is behind you, is looking out like you are,
he'll see you. Cool eh.

--
Duncan

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> John Clonts writes:
>
>> Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
>> upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
>> Thomas said).
>
> The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
> definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
> visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.
>
How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
THING before it sinks in?

Neil

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> John Clonts writes:
>
> > Wrong again. The burden for separation with VFR traffic is legally
> > upon you whether you have them in sight or not (in most airspace, as
> > Thomas said).
>
> The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said), not VFR. By
> definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
> visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

Hey I said that MSFS has some good docs, I'm sure VFR and IFR are in
there. Stop flying yer MSFS! :) - and do some reading! :)

If yer IFR in VMC, you most certainly do have a responsibility to
lookout and avoid traffic. Controllers do make mistakes - did I tell
you about the time a Tower controller lined me and two other lighties up
on the main runway, them on 20 (it was a 15kt southerly) and me on 02?
I asked him to confirm 02, he told me to make a 180 and line up 20 (I
was in front of the other two a/c). He then cleard the 'middle' a/c for
t/o. Luckily he was on the ball and declined and pointed out a C-172
(me) just ahead on the rwy. I snuck in too and cheekily and ambigously
advised, "ready 20". They're humans yer know.

--
Duncan

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see or
> visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.

Why do you persist in repeating this falsehood?

In most airspace, when you're flying IFR, ATC isn't even required to
*mention* VFR traffic to you (so there is nothing for you to "acknowledge").
In fact, ATC doesn't even necessarily have any way to *see* any VFR traffic
near you (they don't necessarily have radar coverage of your area; to
separate IFR planes from one another, ATC can just clear one IFR plane at a
time into a given length of airway at a given altitude, and rely on
occasional position reports from the IFR pilot). We have repeatedly pointed
you to reference material that documents the pertinent rules.

Mxsmanic, you are single-handedly undermining the quality of this newsgroup
by posting a copious stream of grossly ignorant, often-dangerous falsehoods
stated as facts (in the past month, you have become this group's most
prolific poster). Those of us who want this newsgroup to be a reliable
source of aviation advice have no choice but to waste our time cleaning up
after you. By now, the only credible explanation for your conduct is that
you are imposing this annoyance intentionally, knowing that we cannot afford
to just ignore you if you post sufficiently hazardous misinformation.

Some here respond to you with childish taunts, which only further degrades
the discourse here. I suggest that in the future, we reply only with the
following terse boilerplate:

"Boilerplate response: Mxsmanic, by his own account, has never flown an
aircraft or taken a flying lesson; he is unfamiliar with even the most basic
aviation training material. Yet he habitually and repetitively posts absurd
or dangerous claims here, adopting a misleadingly factual, authoritative
tone, and ignores our factual corrections. Please do not mistake his remarks
for knowledgeable or well-intentioned discussion."

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
> THING before it sinks in?

What's the definition of insanity?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> You must separate yourself from all aircraft you can see.
>

Yep. How much time and brain capacity I devote to that "seeing" (or
rather, looking for) is strongly dependant on the type of airspace I'm
in. Simple economics.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> but it still does not absolve you of your responsability to
> see and avoid.

How do you carry out that responsibility, in such a case? ESP?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Marty Shapiro writes:
> >
> >> After reading this, explain to us again how when IFR
> >> you don't have to look out the window.
> >
> > Show me where I said that you don't have to look out the window.
> >
>
> On Saturday, September 30, you stated "In IFR, you don't have to look
> out the window for other aircraft. You have help from controllers."

FOR OTHER AIRCRAFT

A controller may ask if you have visual contact with traffic. If you
do, you can say so, and thereby assume responsibility for maintaining
separation with it. If you don't see it, you cannot maintain
separation, so you are not responsible for doing so.

> On Sunday, October 1, you stated "By definition, if you are flying by
> instruments, you aren't looking out the window. ATC provides separation."

Yes. If you can see everything yourself, you don't need IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:[i]
> > By definition, if you are flying IFR, you don't have to be able to see
> > or visually maintain separation from anything, unless you implicitly
> > agree to do so by acknowledging visual contact.
>
> A pilot who acted according to your statement would be in violation of U.S.
> Federal Aviation Regulation 91.113(b). It states:
>
> "When weather conditions permit , regardless of whether an
> operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight
> rules [VFR], vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
> aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft."

Where's the conflict?
[i]
> In other words, if you as a pilot are flying under IFR through VMC, the
> right-of-way rules require you to keep a visual watch for other aircraft.

If you are flying IFR, by definition, you may or may not be able to
see other aircraft. If you can see aircraft, you can maintain visual
separation; otherwise you cannot.

> If other aircraft are spotted that present a right-of-way conflict, you may
> need to alter course if the other craft has the right-of-way as indicated
> by the remainder of 91.113. I see no mention of "implicit agreement" in the
> rules on this matter, nor any mention of "acknowledging visual contact".
> Where are you getting your information?

I read it, but I don't remember where.

The part you quoted from the regulations says nothing about being
required to acquire and maintain visual contact. Only vigilance is
required. Absent proof of a lack of vigilance, you're following the
rules.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> what you fail to understand is that when you fly in VMC, you
> do share the airspace with other people who may fly VFR.

If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
> THING before it sinks in?

Being told I'm wrong and being proven wrong are two different things.
Repetition of the former has no effect in the absence of the latter.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Skylune[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sylvain writes:
>
> > ... if you tell your local pilots that you'd be happy
> > to recycle these publication to use on a sim I am sure
> > they'd be happy to oblige.
>
> Not if they're from this newsgroup.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

MX: Try ipilot.com rather than usenet. There are very spirited
discussions that go on there, and you might get the answers you are
looking for.

That is a moderated site, so you need to be extremely careful not to
offend. I've gotten booted off of there a few times when I had the
audacity to reveal some "unpleasant truths" about GA, but I have some
computer expert friends who helped me to hack back in. I had to change
my screen name, and now I have alot of fun chatting with the pilots.
(I pretend to be a student pilot).

But be very respectful, even when confronted with total bull****, which
as you know will be frequent. Many GA pilots have very thin skin, as
you probably also know by now.

I was on a web site earlier that actually stated that there is an
organized conspiracy against GA. A vast anti-GA conspiracy. LOL!

[Skylune[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
>
> > It must be difficult for you.
>
> It is.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ignore nurse Schnerd. He must have dropped out of medical school.

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
> you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic).

"Boilerplate response: Mxsmanic, by his own account, has never flown an
aircraft or taken a flying lesson; he is unfamiliar with even the most basic
aviation training material. Yet he habitually and repetitively posts absurd
or dangerous claims here, adopting a misleadingly factual, authoritative
tone, and ignores our factual corrections. Please do not mistake his remarks
for knowledgeable or well-intentioned discussion."

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> A controller may ask if you have visual contact with traffic. If you
> do, you can say so, and thereby assume responsibility for maintaining
> separation with it. If you don't see it, you cannot maintain
> separation, so you are not responsible for doing so.

"Boilerplate response: Mxsmanic, by his own account, has never flown an
aircraft or taken a flying lesson; he is unfamiliar with even the most basic
aviation training material. Yet he habitually and repetitively posts absurd
or dangerous claims here, adopting a misleadingly factual, authoritative
tone, and ignores our factual corrections. Please do not mistake his remarks
for knowledgeable or well-intentioned discussion."

[Mxsmanic]

Skylune writes:

> That is a moderated site, so you need to be extremely careful not to
> offend.

I no longer participated in moderated forums, sorry.

> But be very respectful, even when confronted with total bull****, which
> as you know will be frequent.

I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without
it.

> Many GA pilots have very thin skin, as you probably also know by now.

A lot of people do.

> I was on a web site earlier that actually stated that there is an
> organized conspiracy against GA. A vast anti-GA conspiracy. LOL!

I think there is danger in the future for GA, but not from any
conspiracy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> what you fail to understand is that when you fly in VMC, you
>> do share the airspace with other people who may fly VFR.
>
> If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
> you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic).
>
Good grief. This is completely wrong, and anyone attempting to follow this
advice would be in violation of the FARs.

What will it take to get you to stop posting such misinformation to an
otherwise informative newsgroup?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE
>> SAME THING before it sinks in?
>
> Being told I'm wrong and being proven wrong are two different things.
> Repetition of the former has no effect in the absence of the latter.
>
You have been told you are wrong by MANY PILOTS of REAL AIRPLANES. That
should carry some weight, considering that you are neither a pilot nor
have you taken any flight lessons. However, you have also been PROVEN
wrong by MANY PILOTS who have posted the relevant regulations and
references. Neither of these have had an affect on your behavior, and as a
result I can only conclude that you are attempting to damage this
newsgroup by repetitively posting ignorant misinformation. I have to say
that, having "known" you in other newsgroups and contexts for some time,
this is an all-time low for you.

Neil

[Tobias Schnell]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:18:17 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

Thomas,

>Yep. How much time and brain capacity I devote to that "seeing" (or
>rather, looking for) is strongly dependant on the type of airspace I'm
>in. Simple economics.

But charts normally used for IFR flying do not depict airspace
classification at all. Where you and I fly, controllers sometimes say
"you will be entering protected airspace in xx miles" or words to that
effect, but from a regulartory point of view, airspace classes indeed
do not matter to an IFR pilot.

Tobias

[RK Henry]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:54:57 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without
>it.

What? You're simulating a flying saucer now? Well barada nikto to you
too.

RK Henry

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Yes. If you can see everything yourself, you don't need IFR.
>

More ignorance, as to the reasons to file IFR. Why do you think
it is mandatory that air carrier in the U.S. (and likely
elsewhere) fly under IFR? If you think to primarily provide
traffic separation, guess again.

F--

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould writes:
>>
>>> How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE
>>> SAME THING before it sinks in?
>>
>> Being told I'm wrong and being proven wrong are two different things.
>> Repetition of the former has no effect in the absence of the latter.
>>
> You have been told you are wrong by MANY PILOTS of REAL AIRPLANES. That
> should carry some weight, considering that you are neither a pilot nor
> have you taken any flight lessons. However, you have also been PROVEN
> wrong by MANY PILOTS who have posted the relevant regulations and
> references. Neither of these have had an affect on your behavior, and as a
> result I can only conclude that you are attempting to damage this
> newsgroup by repetitively posting ignorant misinformation. I have to say
> that, having "known" you in other newsgroups and contexts for some time,
> this is an all-time low for you.

MY GOD !!!

What will it take, for all of the people of this newsgroup, to stop replying to
this IDIOT TROLL???

PLEASE, everyone, quit feeding this troll. Any question as to if he is a troll
should surely be answered, by now.

Do the right thing. Use restraint, everyone!
--
Jim in NC

PLEASE, please

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> What? You're simulating a flying saucer now? Well barada nikto to you
> too.

There is supposedly an Easter egg in MSFS 2004 that places a UFO near
Roswell, but I haven't actually tried it to see if it's really out
there.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You have been told you are wrong by MANY PILOTS of REAL AIRPLANES. That
> should carry some weight, considering that you are neither a pilot nor
> have you taken any flight lessons.

It carries _some_ weight, but I learned decades ago to be extremely
wary of people who claim to be right on the basis of credentials
alone. Trusting what people say has gotten me into trouble on many
occasions, and so I no longer trust anything without some sort of
independent corroboration.

> However, you have also been PROVEN
> wrong by MANY PILOTS who have posted the relevant regulations and
> references.

The regulations I see don't say quite the same things that the pilots
are saying.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Well, I didn't drop out of medical school and I think Mxsmanic is an
argumentative fool. He (or she) needs to get a life.


Why keep feeding the troll?

[Mike Isaksen]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
> If you are flying IFR in VMC, VFR traffic is required to see you, but
> you are not required to see VFR traffic (or any other traffic).
>
Wow, that is just so wrong I can't let it pass. One of the foundations of
safe flight in the US is that every pilot is required to practice SEE and
AVOID tactics. This is a primary rule anytime you are piloting in VMC
conditions, regardless if you are operating on an IFR flight plan or
following an ATC clearance. I will admit many IFR pilots forget this from
time to time and rely on the BIG SKY THEORY for protection as they zip along
head down (there are too many NTSB reports proving that), but I bet not one
of those would repeat your statement above.

Your idea that ATC will call out any traffic conflict they see is correct,
and they will do this with you in IMC or VMC, because they have no idea what
conditions you are in at that moment. But they can't call the traffic they
can't see. And in most VMC airspace below FL180, I or anyone else on this
newsgroup could be happily flying/gliding/floating without a transponder,
perfectly legal. And for this reason when you are on your IFR flight plan
just exiting that cloud (IMC), it becomes your responsibility as pilot to
immediately change form FULL TIME SCAN of the instruments, to dividing your
SCAN between outside the windscreen and the instruments. If a conflict
exists you have very little time to acquire and react, but you do have time.
This is why the rules exist for mandatory VFR distance from cloud
requirements. This is why those distances are different for ABOVE, and for
BELOW, and for HORIZONTAL, and why these distances change with altitude and
airspace. By the way, the same is true flying an approach to a non-towered
airport. You could break out to a pattern full of airplanes. ATC can't see
em, but you better.

I understand that you are mostly self educated in aviation and your
experience comes from 100 percent sim time, but you have missed out on the
normal building blocks or progression of learning that would give you some
of the more basic concepts. A concept that would stop you from typing your
original statement because you'd know it was nonsensical.

I again give the advice I gave a few day ago: Beg, borrow or steal (or use a
credit card like the rest of us), find a flight club or school in your
location, advise them of your limitations and ask them how you can get an
intro lesson. Then just enjoy it. That is why most of us fly.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Isaksen writes:

> I again give the advice I gave a few day ago: Beg, borrow or steal (or use a
> credit card like the rest of us), find a flight club or school in your
> location, advise them of your limitations and ask them how you can get an
> intro lesson. Then just enjoy it. That is why most of us fly.

I have no money or time for that (and no credit card, and no
transportation). I'm glad that you have the resources to indulge your
interest in aviation by flying actual aircraft, but I do not. I fly a
simulator instead, which costs almost nothing, and I read what I can
find on the Web, because books cost money.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> and I read what I can
> find on the Web, because books cost money.

on that point you are set: all the books you need to
study to get up to speed on the theory are available
for free from the FAA website (links already provided);

--Sylvain

[Stefan]

Tobias Schnell schrieb:

> But charts normally used for IFR flying do not depict airspace
> classification at all. Where you and I fly, controllers sometimes say
> "you will be entering protected airspace in xx miles" or words to that
> effect, but from a regulartory point of view, airspace classes indeed
> do not matter to an IFR pilot.

Yes, from a regulatory point of view they *do* matter even to an IFR
pilot. Whether airspaces are depicted on your chart or not doesn't
matter at all, you're supposed to know in which airspace class you fly.

Stefan

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> The regulations I see don't say quite the same things that the pilots
> are saying.

That's because the regulations were written by FAA lawyers. The pilots have
been trying to state them in plain english.

[Tobias Schnell]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:00:14 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Yes, from a regulatory point of view they *do* matter even to an IFR
>pilot. Whether airspaces are depicted on your chart or not doesn't
>matter at all, you're supposed to know in which airspace class you fly.

OK, I'll bite: What difference does it make for the conduct of my
flight whether I am in class C, D or E? As others have pointed out
already, you are required to separate yourself from every aircraft you
can see, no matter which airspace you are flying in.

Tobias

[Stefan]

Tobias Schnell schrieb:

> OK, I'll bite: What difference does it make for the conduct of my
> flight whether I am in class C, D or E? As others have pointed out
> already, you are required to separate yourself from every aircraft you
> can see, no matter which airspace you are flying in.

In class C and "above", ATC is supposed to separate you from VFR
traffic. In class D and "below", you know that you will not be separated
from VFR traffic. Now while you are supposed to look out of the window
in both cases, this *will* inevitably influence your mindset.

And it *will* influence the outcome in court. (This may or may not be of
any interest to you at that point.) I tend to believe that it goes even
further: While you theoretically are supposed to look out of the window
in clas C, you are also supposed to trust and rely on ATC. Otherwise, it
wouldn't be possible to fly in IMC at all.

Stefan

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I have no money

You might save some by dropping your web site http://www.mxsmanic.com/.
I'm not sure how you are paying for ISP access and giganews.com access -
dropping these would presumably free up money.

> or time

People sink a great amount of time into Usenet. There exist many ways to
reduce or even eliminate the time spent on these groups, which can be
devoted to other pursuits.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You have been told you are wrong by MANY PILOTS of REAL AIRPLANES.
>> That should carry some weight, considering that you are neither a
>> pilot nor have you taken any flight lessons.
>
> It carries _some_ weight, but I learned decades ago to be extremely
> wary of people who claim to be right on the basis of credentials
> alone. Trusting what people say has gotten me into trouble on many
> occasions, and so I no longer trust anything without some sort of
> independent corroboration.
>
Of which you have had plenty of whatever type you feel relevant, and you
still persist in posting false statements.

>> However, you have also been PROVEN
>> wrong by MANY PILOTS who have posted the relevant regulations and
>> references.
>
> The regulations I see don't say quite the same things that the pilots
> are saying.
>
The official regulations certainly do agree with what we are saying, as do
the excerpts posted by various members of this newsgroup. If you don't see
that, then you simply don't understand the regulations (which I would find
quite likely, given your status).

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> on that point you are set: all the books you need to
> study to get up to speed on the theory are available
> for free from the FAA website (links already provided);

Yes ... I've already found some of them, and they are quite
interesting. And they are free. I saw one of them in the pilot's
shop, and it was something like $40, even though it was nothing more
than the electronic version on paper.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> You might save some by dropping your web site http://www.mxsmanic.com/.
> I'm not sure how you are paying for ISP access and giganews.com access -
> dropping these would presumably free up money.

I host my own Web sites. The Internet access saves much more than it
costs.

> People sink a great amount of time into Usenet. There exist many ways to
> reduce or even eliminate the time spent on these groups, which can be
> devoted to other pursuits.

If I spent no time at all on USENET, it still would not free enough
time to undertake flying for real.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> That's because the regulations were written by FAA lawyers. The pilots have
> been trying to state them in plain english.

The version written by the lawyers is the only official version.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tobias Schnell]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:00:15 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>In class C and "above", ATC is supposed to separate you from VFR
>traffic. In class D and "below", you know that you will not be separated
>from VFR traffic. Now while you are supposed to look out of the window
>in both cases, this *will* inevitably influence your mindset.

It probably will. Not because of the subtle distinction regarding
separation, but rather because there should be no unknown VFR-traffic
and especially no gliders in anything from "D" and above. Most
controllers separate everyone from everyone in "D" anyway.

But that's why I was talking about the regulatory aspect. In that
sense, airspace classification is not relevant to IFR flying.

>And it *will* influence the outcome in court.

How so? Apart from that, staying clear of other aircraft is of
literally such vital importance that legalities are the last thing on
my mind when an "ugly" situation develops.

> I tend to believe that it goes even
>further: While you theoretically are supposed to look out of the window
>in clas C, you are also supposed to trust and rely on ATC. Otherwise, it
>wouldn't be possible to fly in IMC at all.

Sure. But that's not the way the regs are written.

Tobias

[LWG]

Second marriages...

">> How many times do you have to be told that you are WRONG about THE SAME
>> THING before it sinks in?
>
> What's the definition of insanity?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> The discussion concerns IFR traffic (as Thomas said),
>

Never, ever did I say such a thing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

I actually carry a small monocular that I use to check the windsock when I
can't get close enough to see it from the air. Don't use it often, but it
has come in handy.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> This made me think of something else: How many pilots carry
> binoculars with them in the cockpit?