How do you find the limits of areas on a chart?

[Mxsmanic]

I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
them?

Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
not always been available.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.

The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.

To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
fly. And best of all, it's free.

http://www.whittsflying.com/

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.
>
Reading a chart, like many other things, is a process that requires
knowledge. One gains this knowledge by studying. Once you have studied and
gained the necessaryt knowledge, you will know that there is no
"guesstimate" involved in knowing the boundaries of areas on a chart. You
have been given ample resources by many posters that would enable the
average person to research and answer this question on their own. Why not
give that a try?

Neil

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.

You can use your instruments and you can use your eyes. You get
clearances (if required) *before* you enter an area. When climbing out
and under VFR you ensure you remain below TMA's by the same technique -
well *before* the area.

If IFR, you fly what you're told - if you think the controller's made a
mistake (because of what you can see on the charts), then asking for
clarification might be wise.

You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).

--
Duncan

[The Visitor]

Neil Gould wrote:
You
> have been given ample resources by many posters that would enable the
> average person to research and answer this question on their own. Why not
> give that a try?

I had a funny though,t that a person could write a learn to fly a
simulator book; comprised of cut and pasted poster's answers to all
these various questions. ??? Every aspect it seems if being covered.

[Robert M. Gary]

Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
>
> To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
> has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
> fly. And best of all, it's free.

Today most of us just hold the wing off the red line on the GPS. We can
thread some pretty tight areas with GPS today.

-Robert

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.

Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
out in the real world?

If the former, there's a legend printed on every chart.

If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
"looking out the window for landmarks."

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.

Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
wish to avoid?

> To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
> has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
> fly. And best of all, it's free.
>
> http://www.whittsflying.com/

I'll try it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> I had a funny though,t that a person could write a learn to fly a
> simulator book; comprised of cut and pasted poster's answers to all
> these various questions. ??? Every aspect it seems if being covered.

The ideal simulator can be flown by a real pilot with no special
instruction at all. That's why it's called a simulator.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
> VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).

I've been able to find sectional charts and terminal charts at
SkyVector, but where can I find IFR charts?

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the
>> terrain surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation
>> aids.
>
> Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
> exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
> flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
> wish to avoid?

No..... The answer is very clearly answered above.

Read it real slow, and just maybe you may get out of it, you use your
eyes......

The answer is clearly in Google. The news about the plane in NY crashing
into a condominium will sure give you real life examples to your questions
being asked.

DO YOUR RESEARCH as you claim and the answers are there.

Allen

[Jim Macklin]

You can also find the textual description on area. Or you
can use a chart to plot the lat/lon for any point.

SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
(Military Operations Area)
04-AGL-63-NR & 05-AGL-18-NR
Racer A MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,

to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 00' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 01' 29"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 16' 06"W long.,
to 39° 06' 00"N lat., 86° 15' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
4,000' MSL.

Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer A MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN

Racer B MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,

to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 00' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 01' 29"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 16' 06"W long.,
to 39° 06' 00"N lat., 86° 15' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 4,000' MSL up to 8,000' MSL.

Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer B MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN

Racer C MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,

to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
FL 180.

Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer C MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN

Racer D MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 22' 00"N lat., 86° 06'
40"W long.,

to 39° 22' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 21' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 21' 30"N lat., 86° 06' 00"W long.,
to 39° 13' 00"N lat., 86° 06' 00"W long.,
to 39° 13' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09' 50"W long.,
to 39° 19' 00"N lat., 86° 11' 20"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 14,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.

Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer D MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN

JPG A MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 39' 00"N lat., 85° 56'
00"W long.,

to 38° 39' 00"N lat., 86° 05' 13"W long.,
to 38° 46' 00"N lat., 86° 13' 00"W long.,
to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.,
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 57"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 55' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 50' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52' 43"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
6,000' MSL; excluding the airspace from the surface to but
not including 4,000 feet MSL beginning at

38° 39' 00"N lat., 85° 56' 00"W long.;
to 38° 39' 00"N lat., 86° 05' 13"W long.;
to 38° 46' 00"N lat., 86° 13' 00"W long.;
to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.;
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
thence south, southeast along the Louisville and
Indiana railroad tracks;
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52' 43"W long.;
to point of beginning.

Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG A MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN

JPG B MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52'
43"W long.,

to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.,
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 6,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.

Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG B MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN

JPG C MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33'
00"W long.,

to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 38° 57' 30"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 38° 55' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 50' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 6,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.

Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG C MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN

JPG D MOA, IN

Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33'
00"W long.,

to 39° 10' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 12' 00"N lat., 85° 29' 00"W long.,
to 39° 10' 00"N lat., 85° 22' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 00"N lat., 85° 22' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 57"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
4,000' MSL.

Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG D MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.

Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC

Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN

For status of the Racer MOAs call (812) 526-1496. For
status of JPG MOAs call (812) 689-7295.








"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
| Mxsmanic > wrote in
| :
|
| > Judah writes:
| >
| >> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it
depicts the
| >> terrain surrounding those borders as well as any nearby
navigation
| >> aids.
| >
| > Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a
few
| > exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and
a ruler in
| > flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear
of airspaces I
| > wish to avoid?
|
| No..... The answer is very clearly answered above.
|
| Read it real slow, and just maybe you may get out of it,
you use your
| eyes......
|
| The answer is clearly in Google. The news about the plane
in NY crashing
| into a condominium will sure give you real life examples
to your questions
| being asked.
|
| DO YOUR RESEARCH as you claim and the answers are there.
|
| Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
> how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
> out in the real world?

How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.

> If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
> technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
> "looking out the window for landmarks."

But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
surveyed.

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

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.

WRONG AGAIN.

Maybe if you took the time to RESEARCH how to read a sectional, you will
find all sorts of goodies, such as power lines, lakes, rivers, cities,
points of interests that actually correlate with USING YOUR EYES outside
the window. And guess what, there are even roads depicted on the charts.

And this is only a small taste of what a chart can offer. DO YOUR RESEARCH
and you wouldn't be saying such silly things as above.

Allen

[randall g]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:35:43 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Ron Garret writes:
>
>> Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
>> how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
>> out in the real world?
>
>How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
>as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
>the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
>indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.


It's called pilotage and it's really not that hard in real life, if you
are at all good with maps in the first place (which I expect most pilots
are). You really owe it to yourself to fly for real some day.

(reminds me of a great line in LordOTRings:
"Maps conveyed nothing to Sam's mind")




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
> as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
> the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
> indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.

In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.

> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.

The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills, mountains.
All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not effectively
simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit of a small plane,
and that is why you are having so much trouble.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Judah wrote:
> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
> don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.

Ahhh, but you can in MSFS... <snicker>

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> > surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
>
> Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
> exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
> flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
> wish to avoid?

The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
distance and can figure direction.

-Robert, CFII

[A Lieberma]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
oups.com:

> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> distance and can figure direction.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Be honest Robert *very big smile*

Outside of training, when was the last time you used the plotter in flight?

It's been some time since I did a "true VFR flight" but when I did, I used
the tic marks inside the boxes (going on memory, 30 miles per box) to
figure mileage and eyeballed the heading based on my direction of flight.

In my VFR checkride, if memory serves me correct, the DE didn't look for me
to know the direction to the umpteenth degreee for my diversion airport
(what general heading would I turn to), but he did want to know within 5
miles how far I was from the airport I had to "divert" during the check
ride from a checkpoint I had crossed.

He also wanted me to tell him what I would look for at my diversion airport
based on the sectional which was easy for me, don't cross the Mississippi
river, follow Interstate 20 and look north (left) of the city of Vicksburg
to find my airport.

Allen
(who gave up the plotter for computerized flight planning)

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Judah writes:
> >
> > > The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> > > surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
> >
> > Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
> > exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
> > flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
> > wish to avoid?
>
> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> distance and can figure direction.
>
> -Robert, CFII

I learned navigation on a boat, where the traditional tools are parallel
rules and a pair of dividers. I always found the standard aviation plotter
to be awkward to use compared to those. Use whatever works for you.

Neither a plotter nor parallel rules is convenient to use in the cockpit
(they're mostly pre-flight planning tools). AOPA puts out a nice little
gizmo called an AIR-AID. It's not much more than a piece of thin plastic
with sectional and terminal chart scales printed on it, but it fits in a
pocket, and it's handy to use in flight.

Also, learn to estimate. A VOR compass rose is 10 nm radius on a
sectional. For bearing, I put the edge of my hand down and then slide it
over to the nearest compass ross, keeping the angle constant. Should get
you within 10 degrees or so.

[Dan[_1_]]

I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).

Sometimes I just file IFR to avoid the hassles.

--Dan


Grumman-581 wrote:
> Judah wrote:
> > In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
> > progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
> > don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
>
> Ahhh, but you can in MSFS... <snicker>

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas,

There's a dark, dashed line painted on the surface of the earth denoting
these areas, making avoidance easy. These lines are not noticeable to those
on the surface, but are easily visable from the air. If you'd take the
bother to go on a real flight, you would notice this. :-)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
> > VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).
>
> I've been able to find sectional charts and terminal charts at
> SkyVector, but where can I find IFR charts?

You could check out some arrival and departure plates here...

http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Christchurch


--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> distance and can figure direction.

I googled for this and found only software.

I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
using with flat charts on tables in movies? Certainly that might be
useful, but what about during flight? Chart tables would be awkward
in the cockpit (although large aircraft with navigators might have
them).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> You could check out some arrival and departure plates here...
>
> http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Christchurch

AirNav has those. But it sounds like there are other en-route charts
for IFR, which I haven't seen.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Maybe if you took the time to RESEARCH how to read a sectional, you will
> find all sorts of goodies, such as power lines, lakes, rivers, cities,
> points of interests that actually correlate with USING YOUR EYES outside
> the window.

I've looked very carefully at sectionals. In the vast majority of
cases, there are no clear landmarks indicated that allow one to locate
the exact boundary of airspaces. The best one can do is allow a
margin of several miles or more, but in crowded areas that may not be
sufficient.

How do I know if I'm in the southwestern tip of the Turtle MOA on the
chart that covers Arizona, for example? There are no landmarks given.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
> don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.

I don't see any difference between the two.

> The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
> cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills, mountains.

Not enough to locate the boundaries of the airspaces.

> All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not effectively
> simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit of a small plane,
> and that is why you are having so much trouble.

No, I'm having trouble because there isn't anything on the chart that
allows me to locate airspace boundaries in many cases. The boundaries
are not stenciled on the ground outside the window, even in real life.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).

I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
maps and GPS do it?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> You ought to know where you are anyway, at least roughly. If you do,
> you also know when approaching an airspace indicated in the chart.

But you don't know when you've cross the boundary in most cases. You
can only guess. You can find points that are definitely outside or
definitely inside, but you cannot find the boundary itself.

> That's what navigation is all about. If you don't know where you are at
> all, you're doing something wrong.

It's not a question of not knowing at all, it's a question of knowing
with sufficient precision to respect airspace boundaries.

> In "empty" areas you use a technique called dead reckoning. It's
> essentially extrapolating from your last known position. Of course this
> introduces an error, which you should take into account when deciding
> your safety margins from any obstacle or forbidden airspace.

In other words, you still don't know.

> If you feel uncertain about those blank areas, you can always avoid them.

Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
avoid them and still complete the flight.

> No, but they don't have to for that purpose. You deduce your position
> in the topography relative to visible landmarks without having to be
> exactly over them, and from there you deduce your position relative to
> whatever airspace depicted on the map, once again without its boundary
> having to be exactly on a landmark.

That only works if you leave an extremely wide margin for error.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberma writes:
>
>> Maybe if you took the time to RESEARCH how to read a sectional, you will
>> find all sorts of goodies, such as power lines, lakes, rivers, cities,
>> points of interests that actually correlate with USING YOUR EYES outside
>> the window.
>
> I've looked very carefully at sectionals. In the vast majority of
> cases, there are no clear landmarks indicated that allow one to locate
> the exact boundary of airspaces. The best one can do is allow a
> margin of several miles or more, but in crowded areas that may not be
> sufficient.
>
> How do I know if I'm in the southwestern tip of the Turtle MOA on the
> chart that covers Arizona, for example? There are no landmarks given.
>

You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole Mountains,
and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between that and the Cadiz
Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know how to read a sectional.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
>> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc.
>> You don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
>
> I don't see any difference between the two.

There go those blinders again!

>> The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
>> cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills,
>> mountains.
>
> Not enough to locate the boundaries of the airspaces.

If you know how to read a sectional properly and can see out the window 5
miles in each direction or more (10 miles total) you should be fine.

>> All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not
>> effectively simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit
>> of a small plane, and that is why you are having so much trouble.
>
> No, I'm having trouble because there isn't anything on the chart that
> allows me to locate airspace boundaries in many cases. The boundaries
> are not stenciled on the ground outside the window, even in real life.

No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a sectional.
That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> You ought to know where you are anyway, at least roughly. If you do,
>> you also know when approaching an airspace indicated in the chart.
>
> But you don't know when you've cross the boundary in most cases. You
> can only guess. You can find points that are definitely outside or
> definitely inside, but you cannot find the boundary itself.

You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair amount
of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of accuracy your
distance from the landmarks.

> Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
> avoid them and still complete the flight.

Where is this?

>> No, but they don't have to for that purpose. You deduce your position
>> in the topography relative to visible landmarks without having to be
>> exactly over them, and from there you deduce your position relative to
>> whatever airspace depicted on the map, once again without its boundary
>> having to be exactly on a landmark.
>
> That only works if you leave an extremely wide margin for error.

How wide, exactly? Clearly, you're not going to trace a line with your
airplane track along an airspace boundary using pilotage and dead reckoning
in most cases. But it's not very difficult to triangulate your position
using the landmarks you can observe, even in a 5-10nm radius.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.

The expired chart offer still stands... <G>

There are shaded lines denoting E/G space. Most of a chart can be E, so
the E/G line can be difficult to find.

B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
> avoid them and still complete the flight.

In that case, you resort to common sense. Either you pick an alternative
route (or altitude) that doesn't have that problem, or you establish radio
contact with the appropriate ATC facility so you can transit the airspace
without having to worry about the exact boundary.

However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in congested
areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?

--Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
>

The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
that it is mostly landmarks.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Dan writes:
>
> > I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> > area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> > Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> > easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
>
> I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
> maps and GPS do it?

What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
system.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:16:34 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Dan writes:
> >
> > > I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> > > area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> > > Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> > > easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
> >
> > I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
> > maps and GPS do it?
>
> What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
> pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
> system.

The other factor is "plausible deniability." :-)

The best advice I ever heard was that if ATC accuses you of violating their
airspace, your response should be, "My navigation shows me outside your
controlled area. But which way would you like me to steer?"

A few years back, I was a right-seater on a Helio Courier flown by a Boeing test
pilot during work just outside a local Class C area controlled by the Navy. He
contacted the controller who accused him of entering without permission. The
pilot then fed the controller the riot act. The bounds were definite, and we
were definitely outside them. Later, he told me that the Navy used that
particular station for new controllers....

Ron Wanttaja

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:35:04 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
>> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
>> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
>> looking at the chart.
>
>The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
>
>There are shaded lines denoting E/G space. Most of a chart can be E, so
>the E/G line can be difficult to find.
>
>B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
>numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but around the SF Bay
area, most permanent airspace boundaries are chosen to coincide with
surface features or VOR radials. (It may be trickier further east,
where all the silos look alike.)

For more help in terminal areas, the back side of the terminal charts
have little drawings of what key landmarks actually look like.

And for temporary areas, the gummint kindly charts them and posts them
anew, superimposed on your choice of sectional, WAC, or GNC, every
morning on http://airspace.nifc.gov/mapping/nifc/index.cfm

Don

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).

Depends upon how convoluted the airspace might be... Houston is not overly
convoluted and I don't have a problem threading the various airspaces with
just a LORAN, but for the most part, our airspace relies on 8nm inner cones
around the two Class-B airports that we have... The one for HOU is flattened
a bit on top to allow for the I-10 VFR corridor between HOU and IAH, even if
you ignore that part of it and just figure that each airport has an 8nm
inner cone around it, you can squeeze through there with just a minimal
LORAN or GPS that only gives you bearing and distance... Houston probably
wouldn't be that bad if you were even unfamiliar with it, but there are
definitely some areas where having a moving map with the airspace delimited
on it might be rather useful...

[Judah]

"Dan" > wrote in
oups.com:

> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).

I think it depends on a whole lot of factors.

The Hudson River VFR Corridor in NYC is a tight area, but it easy to identify
the lateral and vertical limits using landmarks the whole way down, even for
pilots who are not from the area. In fact, when I fly the Hudson River, I
don't have time to be looking at the GPS much if at all...

But it also depends on how you define unfamiliar. There is a WHOLE LOT of
information available about flying the Hudson River corridor that a pilot can
use to become familiar with it even before ever having been there in person.

[Gary Drescher]

"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).

I've done a lot of GPS-less flying under the Class B for New York, Boston,
Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto (well, Toronto is Class C, but it's like
a US Class B). You have to pay attention, but it's not inordinately
difficult. (Most of the planes I rent don't have a GPS, and I have yet to
get a portable one.)

If I didn't feel prepared to do the navigation without a GPS, I wouldn't
feel comfortable even with a GPS. (What if it failed?) It could still be
usefully redundant, of course; but I don't think it's essential.

--Gary

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
> > that it is mostly landmarks.
>
> I don't see that many,

Then you need to have your vision checked. What do you think all that
ink on the VFR chart is for?

> but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?

That depends on whether you are a competent pilot or not. But why do
you think it's necessary to "continually check them all"?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
> > how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
> > out in the real world?
>
> How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
> as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
> the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
> indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.

"Largely empty" is not the same as empty.

> > If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
> > technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
> > "looking out the window for landmarks."
>
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.

There are more landmarks there than you think. Why don't you pick an
example of a boundary that you're having trouble with? Talking about
this in generalities doesn't seem to be productive.

rg

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> > distance and can figure direction.
>
> I googled for this and found only software.
>
> I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
> using with flat charts on tables in movies? Certainly that might be
> useful, but what about during flight? Chart tables would be awkward
> in the cockpit (although large aircraft with navigators might have
> them).

Two answers. First, when I'm flying my Mooney around at near the speed
of sound I just have a rough idea of where the airspace is and use ATC
and the GPS to avoid it.
However, when I fly the J-3 (and when I first started flying) I carried
a small plotter. You can use it in flight. In fact I'm required to make
sure my students can use it in flight for navigation and diversion. You
can use it in flight.
I still carry a small plotter in the pocket of my seat. I have multiple
scales on it so I can use it for IFR charts too but it also works for
sectionals.

I have one that has a Wizwheel built in and I use it regularly. Its
easier for me to figure TAS using the wizwheel then puching numbers
into the GPS to computer it. The Wizwheel is still a close friend of
mine. When I flew the GPS, the Wizwheel, my watch, and my plotter were
the *only* navigation tools I had.

-Robert, CFII

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> How do I know if I'm in the southwestern tip of the Turtle MOA on the
> chart that covers Arizona, for example?

You are mightily confused, my friend. The Turtle MOA is (mostly) in
California, not Arizona.

> There are no landmarks given.

Do you see Cadiz lake?

> I've looked very carefully at sectionals.

Apparently not.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole Mountains,
> and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between that and the Cadiz
> Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know how to read a sectional.

You're too far south, and too far east. The western tip is actually
at N34°14'00" W115°30'00", and the southern border runs along the
aforementioned parallel, but without a reliable indicator of your
exact latitude and longitude in the cockpit, this doesn't help much
(although it can be readily seen from the sectional in this case).

The eastern extreme of the Pinto Mountains meets the southern extreme
of the Sheep Hole Mountains at about N34°04' W115°33', giving your
suggested position an error of about five miles. The adjacent V514
airway is only about eight miles across, so that's a pretty big error.

Unfortunately, by the time you've figured this all out, you've
collided with a fighter jet.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Roy Smith writes:

> What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
> pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
> system.

Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
airspace violation?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a sectional.
> That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.

I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
a guided missile passing through the fuselage.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair amount
> of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of accuracy your
> distance from the landmarks.

Even as you are flying? There are a lot of airspaces to worry about.

> Where is this?

Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.

> How wide, exactly?

A good ten miles or so, at least, depending on many factors.

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

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Roy Smith writes:
>
>> What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
>> pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
>> system.
>
> Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
> airspace violation?
>

He's being sarcastic. I hope... <G>

The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Drescher writes:

> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in congested
> areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
> precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?

I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
> that it is mostly landmarks.

I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
airspace boundaries, while in flight?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> The expired chart offer still stands... <G>

Postage overseas is expensive.

> There are shaded lines denoting E/G space. Most of a chart can be E, so
> the E/G line can be difficult to find.
>
> B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
> numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.

They are all easy to find on the chart, but I'm concerned about
finding them outside the window, without a GPS that shows them.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Unfortunately, by the time you've figured this all out, you've
> collided with a fighter jet.

Only if you were so paranoid about it that you sat there staring at your
charts and calculators instead of looking out the window.

However, since an MOA is nonrestrictive in nature, and there's no real harm
in being a few miles further outside it's boundary than you could be with a
GPS, looking out the window seems to suffice.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
>> that it is mostly landmarks.
>
> I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?
>
> --
>

As a matter of fact you do.

For this example the restricted airspace is on your right. You know that on
your track the closest you are going to come to a given boundary is at point
X. You would look at the chart and find something or group of somethings at
or near point X and then make sure you fly to the left of them.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair
>> amount of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of
>> accuracy your distance from the landmarks.
>
> Even as you are flying? There are a lot of airspaces to worry about.

Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?

Do you do this equally as well as you did the first time you got into a
car? Do you need a GPS to do this?

The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.

> Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
> you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
> other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.

Careful calculation is not required. And certainly there is no harm in
leaving yourself a bit of lattitude if you don't have tools to do it with
exacting precision.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
>> numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.
>
> They are all easy to find on the chart, but I'm concerned about
> finding them outside the window, without a GPS that shows them.

Without GPS:

Most B & C, and lots of D airports have a VORTAC on the field. DME
will tell you the distance from the DME station, which is usually near
the center of the field, and the airspace.. Otherwise, you need to
establish where you are using off-field VOR radials and/or chart denoted
visual landmarks. Easy landmarks include airports, roads (especially
intersections), cities, towers, stacks, power lines, water feature,
etc... I haven't flown with an NDB in a long time, so I can't comment
on using those.

This is taught, tested, and developed during training, and good pilots
put a lot of effort into location awareness. With practice, it becomes
easy, possibly second nature.

Typically, you wouldn't fly right up to the edge of sensitive airspace
unless you had a very high confidence in your position. If it's a
controlled airspace situation, you'd get clearance or establish two-way
communications, as required, while still obviously outside the space.
If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least
monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near.

If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd
simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gary Drescher writes:
>
>> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in
>> congested areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the
>> boundaries with precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
>
> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.

In real life, you don't need to hit buttons to look out the windows.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
>
> Postage overseas is expensive.

It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
with old charts...

[Kev]

Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Judah writes:
> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
> effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.

That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

> > Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
> > you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
> > other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.

Yes, things can move quickly. That's why it takes training to become a
real life pilot. The latter must learn to be constantly aware of the
airplane's location and heading, and to stay one or more steps ahead of
the plane. It's a skill that can get rusty, for sure.

Kev

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
>
>
> Postage overseas is expensive.

Yeah, it might cost a dollar to mail a chart to Frogland.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a
>> sectional. That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
>
> I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
> a guided missile passing through the fuselage.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. You misread the map, and you have no idea what
an MOA is.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?

This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do. Makes the
flight go quicker. Hell, even under IFR, if there's no cloud
below me, I like to reference a sectional to see what curious
things are down there. And yes, Virginia, that includes while
tending to: listening/talking to ATC, staying on airway (wind dir
shifts), correcting for altitude deviations due to up/downdrafts,
planning when I need a descent should ATC not timely initiate,
reviewing any STAR and the approach plate(s) again....

F--

[Gary Drescher]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
> effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.

I don't think that's true. Except when you're within a few feet of the
ground, depth perception by binary parallax and focal length doesn't come
into play when you're flying; so except for the landing flare, a 2D screen
is sufficient. All the navigation tasks Mx is asking about can be performed
quite nicely using MSFS; in fact, it's great practice.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.

--Gary

[Kev]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> > screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> > get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
>
> A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.

Yeah, but how many simmers constantly flip their view around? Pilots
using it for practice, sure. But non-pilots wouldn't normally do it,
methinks.

Now if you had one of those head-tracker thingies, or multiple screens
with side views, that might be a different story. No work involved.
Still, you wouldn't get the effect of easily leaning over and looking
below you (unless you had a screen below you too. Which is an
interesting idea :-)

Cheers, Kev

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a
>> sectional. That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
>
> I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
> a guided missile passing through the fuselage.

"You're an excellent map reader. An excellent map reader. Sometimes Daddy
lets you read maps in the driveway.

Uh Oh!

Wopner at 5! Wopner at 5!"

[Gary Drescher]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher writes:
>
>> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in
>> congested
>> areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
>> precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
>
> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.

If you're trying to simulate pilotage without using paper (or other
off-screen) charts, then you have a challenge that is unrelated to aviation,
or even to simulator use per se. I'm sorry, but I can't help with that (nor
would this be an appropriate forum in which to try).

--Gary

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole
>> Mountains, and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between
>> that and the Cadiz Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know
>> how to read a sectional.
>
> You're too far south, and too far east. The western tip is actually
> at N34°14'00" W115°30'00", and the southern border runs along the
> aforementioned parallel, but without a reliable indicator of your
> exact latitude and longitude in the cockpit, this doesn't help much
> (although it can be readily seen from the sectional in this case).

That depends on your goal. If your goal is to stay clear of the MOA, you're
in exactly the right place - a couple of miles outside the MOA. If you goal
is to fly into the MOA through it's southwestern tip, you might just aim
for the north end of the Coxcomb Mountains.

If your goal is to fly VFR between the Turtle and Bristol MOAs, assuming
you were starting at or near TNP, you would probably aim for Dale Lake,
then fly over the Sheep Hole Mountains toward the western tip of Cadiz
Lake. Then you would look for the Cadiz airport and the 3239' peak just
south of Danby (both would likely be easily discernable) and fly directly
between the two, keeping the 1024' hill off to your left. Then you could
follow the power lines up and through, or you could keep the Old Woman
Mountains off to your right a couple of miles until reaching the Clipper
Mountains.

If you were further making your way to Eagle, you'd see the power lines
intersect Rte 40, and turn right aiming for the Colorado River.

I've never been to that area of the country myself, but it sure looks
pretty easy to navigate.

[Judah]

"Kev" > wrote in news:1162497676.261765.239690
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

Oh good. I knew SOMETHING good would have to come of these deteriorating
Manic threads...


;)

[flyncatfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I'm assuming your are talking about cross country flights. Most pilots
get to know their local area really well without a map. If you are
flying vfr you should be identifying visual checkpoints constantly and
if you are on a X/C flight you should be flying your flight plan, even
if you don't file. You need to know where you are and where you are
headed at all times. If it gets too hazy to identify ground references
than you are probably in marginal vfr or worse. If you want to fly
higher than the turkey vultures I suggest you buy a really good gps and
keep the thing updated. Or better yet spend the time and money and get
an ifr rating and go play at altitude with ATC. The thing that
concerns me most when I fly X/C vfr is the TFR's that pop up suddenly,
especially around election time. You can get a briefing and 10 minutes
later the Pres. or VP or some Senator decides to change his destination
to yours, and if you're not talking to somebody to let you know what's
going on.., well good luck. I use to fly more vfr X/C's but not
anymore. Now I just file ifr, go high and enjoy the fuel savings.

FlynCatfish

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
>> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
>> three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
>> effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.
>
> I don't think that's true. Except when you're within a few feet of the
> ground, depth perception by binary parallax and focal length doesn't come
> into play when you're flying; so except for the landing flare, a 2D screen
> is sufficient. All the navigation tasks Mx is asking about can be
> performed quite nicely using MSFS; in fact, it's great practice.
>

While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
>> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.
>
> Your original question was how to do it without technology, and your
> questioning that it was possible at all.
>

Wolfgang have you not read his posts? This is his MO.

[Laurence Doering[_1_]]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:47:38 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
>> distance and can figure direction.
>
> I googled for this and found only software.
>
> I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
> using with flat charts on tables in movies?

No, the plotter he's talking about is a combined protractor
and ruler made of transparent plastic. The ruler's scales are
calibrated to match distances on aeronautical charts.

You can see what they look like at:

<http://www.sportys.com/acb/webpage.cfm?&DID=19&WebPage_ID=68>

> Certainly that might be useful, but what about during flight?
> Chart tables would be awkward in the cockpit (although large
> aircraft with navigators might have them).

It's possible to whip out a plotter and measure distances and
headings on a folded-up sectional chart in your lap in a typical
light aircraft cockpit, but it's not very convenient.

Typically you'd use a plotter for flight planning on the ground.
Use the ruler to draw a line on the chart along your intended
course, use the protractor to measure the angle between your
course and a north-south line on the chart, and use the scale
on the ruler to find distances.

To answer your original question, in the pre-GPS era most people
would plot course legs that would keep them well clear of restricted
airspace. Make sure you stay near your planned course using a
combination of pilotage and dead reckoning, and you don't have to
worry about exactly where the boundary of the restricted airspace
is.

Seriously, if you want to learn this stuff, you might want to
buy a private pilot ground school textbook of some sort, a plotter,
and a sectional chart or two. Use the textbook to find out how to
plan a flight using a plotter and charts, and then fly it in your
simulator.


ljd

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Roy Smith writes:
>
> > What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
> > pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
> > system.
>
> Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
> airspace violation?

No worries about being violated. I always keep a PBA card in the
windshield.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 11/2/06 4:58 AM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

> Dan writes:
>
>> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
>> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
>> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
>> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
>
> I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
> maps and GPS do it?

VOR triangulation. It's technical.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Kev]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
let them see their house!

And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
etc.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Two answers. First, when I'm flying my Mooney around at near the speed
> of sound I just have a rough idea of where the airspace is and use ATC
> and the GPS to avoid it.

What type of Mooney is it? I didn't know there were any that could
approach the speed of sound.

> However, when I fly the J-3 (and when I first started flying) I carried
> a small plotter. You can use it in flight. In fact I'm required to make
> sure my students can use it in flight for navigation and diversion. You
> can use it in flight.
> I still carry a small plotter in the pocket of my seat. I have multiple
> scales on it so I can use it for IFR charts too but it also works for
> sectionals.

I looked up "chart plotter" on Google, but I don't seem to be finding
any mechanical devices, just software for PCs and the like.

> I have one that has a Wizwheel built in and I use it regularly. Its
> easier for me to figure TAS using the wizwheel then puching numbers
> into the GPS to computer it. The Wizwheel is still a close friend of
> mine. When I flew the GPS, the Wizwheel, my watch, and my plotter were
> the *only* navigation tools I had.

What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.

Slide rules are obsolete now, but they were (and remain) extremely
well suited to some of the types of calculations that pilots and
others must do rapidly under less than ideal conditions. Does anyone
still use them for aviation?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> http://www.flightstore.co.uk/images/prod/prop_1_1241.jpg

Thanks. Still looks a bit awkward to use in flight. I mean, you have
to manipulate the device and the chart at the same time, and you have
no table, and you still have to fly the plane. It looks very awkward.

> You do your flight planning before take-off.

But what if the plan must change during the flight?

> Traditionally, you draw a line on the map along the path you plan
> to fly, you mark it with time ticks, and in regular intervals
> you mark important landmarks that allow you to check that you're
> still on course. You only really have to do
> map work when an expected landmark doesn't show up at the expected
> time, causing you to suspect that you're off course.

The map must get pretty messy after a while, although I suppose that
if you have to buy a new one every month, it doesn't matter too much.

It's hard to imagine squinting at the map in flight. Multiple pilots
have told me that it's possible, though. I'd have to watch them do it
to see how they manage. Certainly reading maps in a car is extremely
awkward, although aircraft can be configured to fly in a more stable
way than a car drives, so I suppose that helps.

Having a copilot would change everything, of course.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Laurence Doering writes:

> No, the plotter he's talking about is a combined protractor
> and ruler made of transparent plastic. The ruler's scales are
> calibrated to match distances on aeronautical charts.
>
> You can see what they look like at:
>
> <http://www.sportys.com/acb/webpage.cfm?&DID=19&WebPage_ID=68>

I see now. Thanks. Still looks a bit inconvenient for use in flight,
although it would be easy enough to use for planning on a desk or
table. Not very expensive, either, compared to most of the other
stuff on the site ($995 for a pair of headphones that costs only $20
to make??). Definitely a rich man's hobby.

> It's possible to whip out a plotter and measure distances and
> headings on a folded-up sectional chart in your lap in a typical
> light aircraft cockpit, but it's not very convenient.

And the aircraft is still flying. I know aircraft can be configured
to fly straight and level for long distances, especially with an
autopilot, but still ... it seems that one could get into trouble
quickly while peering at the chart.

> Typically you'd use a plotter for flight planning on the ground.
> Use the ruler to draw a line on the chart along your intended
> course, use the protractor to measure the angle between your
> course and a north-south line on the chart, and use the scale
> on the ruler to find distances.

That sounds easy enough.

> To answer your original question, in the pre-GPS era most people
> would plot course legs that would keep them well clear of restricted
> airspace. Make sure you stay near your planned course using a
> combination of pilotage and dead reckoning, and you don't have to
> worry about exactly where the boundary of the restricted airspace
> is.

I'm glad that my original question is being answered, thanks.

> Seriously, if you want to learn this stuff, you might want to
> buy a private pilot ground school textbook of some sort, a plotter,
> and a sectional chart or two. Use the textbook to find out how to
> plan a flight using a plotter and charts, and then fly it in your
> simulator.

I'm not sure what books to buy, and I can't buy anything off the Net
because I don't have a working credit card. There are a couple of
good pilot shops here, but their choice of English-language books is
limited (and very expensive, as always), with most stuff being in
French. Similarly, the only charts I can find locally are French
charts, and my simulator flights are mostly in the western United
States. I can find the charts online now, but obviously it's hard to
use this plotter device with an LCD screen.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to use the online charts more for flight
planning, particularly for flights with VATSIM, where others might
notice my mistakes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> That depends on your goal. If your goal is to stay clear of the MOA, you're
> in exactly the right place - a couple of miles outside the MOA.

But the same inaccuracy could put you a couple of miles inside it.

> I've never been to that area of the country myself, but it sure looks
> pretty easy to navigate.

I grew up in the southwestern United States, which is why I like to
fly it in the sim. I know the general orientation of the region,
although I've discovered a lot by flying around inside of it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> You are mightily confused, my friend. The Turtle MOA is (mostly) in
> California, not Arizona.

The chart I'm looking at covers Arizona more than California, it
seems.

> Do you see Cadiz lake?

Sure, it's huge.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> He's being sarcastic. I hope... <G>

OK

> The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.

Sending aircraft up for interception must be an incredibly expensive
exercise (easily a million dollars a pop, I'd guess), so I should hope
so.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wizard of Draws writes:

> VOR triangulation. It's technical.

It can't be that technical. I've done it (regularly in the days
before GPS). It's the map reading that's awkward, I think. It sure
was for me (I wasn't using huge folding charts, either, but it was
still awkward).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
> safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
> you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?

By looking out the window. I don't search for traffic lights or
guardrails on a map. If I did, I'd be tumbling down a mountainside in
no time.

> Do you do this equally as well as you did the first time you got into a
> car?

Pretty much, yes.

> Do you need a GPS to do this?

No.

> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance.

Depth perception doesn't work at distances of more than 15 metres or
so, so the same cues one uses in the real world also work in
simulation.

> Unfortunately, this cannot be effectively done on a two-dimensional
> simulator screen.

See above. It is done routinely. Additionally, full-motion
simulators use collimated projections that place everything at optical
infinity, and they work very well indeed, even though there is no
depth perception at all.

> Careful calculation is not required.

It's required if the chart doesn't tell you at a glance how to
determine the boundaries of the airspace.

> And certainly there is no harm in leaving yourself a bit of lattitude
> if you don't have tools to do it with exacting precision.

Except when you have forbidden areas threatening on both sides.

I wonder if the advent of moving-map navigation aids has made pilots
more prone to fly closely between and around controlled airspaces.
Certainly it seems like a practical advantage of such devices,
provided that they don't fail.

I use an EHSI to fly patterns in the sim, but that is mainly because
it's so hard to look out the side windows (I hope--at least I hope
that visibility is a _lot_ better in a real aircraft).

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

[BT]

you look at the chart
you look at the ground
you navigate by pilotage

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.

True. You can look to the side or outwards at a few different angles,
but it's not instantaneous.

However, parts of the aircraft block a lot of the view when you're not
looking straight ahead, and those parts would still be there in real
life, so I still wonder about real-world visibility.

> Yes, things can move quickly. That's why it takes training to become a
> real life pilot. The latter must learn to be constantly aware of the
> airplane's location and heading, and to stay one or more steps ahead of
> the plane. It's a skill that can get rusty, for sure.

A few days ago I switched tasks to read a chart (I have to visit a Web
page for that--very awkward) and returned to the sim to discovered
that I had hit a mountain. I was checking to see if I was at a safe
altitude. Fortunately, a new Baron was waiting for my reincarnated
self at my home airport.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Drescher writes:

> A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.

That's what I've configured, but it still is awkward. First, if you
don't turn off all the cockpit details, there's a pause as the sim
generates them when you change your viewpoint. Also, at least on my
joystick, it's hard to position the hat precisely for 45-degree
angles, and there is still some bizarre interaction with the throttle
and other controls that I don't understand. I still use it sometimes,
though. If it were instantaneous and easier to manipulate, it would
be very convenient. Maybe then I could fly patterns a little bit
easier.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Yeah, but how many simmers constantly flip their view around? Pilots
> using it for practice, sure. But non-pilots wouldn't normally do it,
> methinks.

I don't do it a lot, but that is more because it is so awkward than
because I don't want to. I'd certainly like to be able to just look
off to the right or left, although the aircraft blocks a lot of the
view (you can turn the aircraft off in the sim, but that's cheating a
bit).

> Still, you wouldn't get the effect of easily leaning over and looking
> below you (unless you had a screen below you too. Which is an
> interesting idea :-)

What happens when you need to look down to the right? When I do that,
all I see is the wing. In fact, the wing is a problem on the left
side, too.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
good your vision is in real life).

I've explicitly attempted pure VFR flight, following only roads or
rivers, and it works fine, even though the roads and rivers don't look
exactly as they do in real life. They are still in the same
positions, and that's what counts. I did fly to KSAN once only to
discover that I was arriving at KLAX, but that's only because I picked
the wrong interstate to follow.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> In real life, you don't need to hit buttons to look out the windows.

In a sim, you need to hit buttons to look out the windows.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Example: Say there's a restricted airspace whose boundary is parallel
> to a big road and very close to it. You just stay on the opposite side
> of that road at all times and you're done. Why worry about the exact
> position of a boundary?

Because sometimes boundaries are very close together, and you have to
fly between them. You can't just stay twenty miles away from one
without being inside the other.

> Such narrow airspace definitions aren't very common. It's possible to
> avoid them by planning one's route around the area one feels
> uncomfortable with.

Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you
see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems
like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> That depends on whether you are a competent pilot or not. But why do
> you think it's necessary to "continually check them all"?

So that you always know where you are.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> For this example the restricted airspace is on your right. You know that on
> your track the closest you are going to come to a given boundary is at point
> X. You would look at the chart and find something or group of somethings at
> or near point X and then make sure you fly to the left of them.

If there's something on the chart at that point. Ay, there's the rub.

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

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
> much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
> version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do.

First someone tells me that a real plane is easier than MSFS, then I'm
told that flying MSFS would not make me able to fly a real plane.
These statements cannot be simultaneously true.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> There are more landmarks there than you think. Why don't you pick an
> example of a boundary that you're having trouble with? Talking about
> this in generalities doesn't seem to be productive.

Most of the boundaries are troublesome if I'm not using a moving map
in the cockpit. I review the chart to see what the altitudes are for
the airspaces (this can be checked in MSFS but it requires pausing the
simulation), but I use the moving map to tell me the actual
boundaries, and I steer around them (or into them), as required.

The worry I have is that not all cockpits contain moving maps, or the
real-world equipment might fail. Then I have to depend entirely on a
chart to find the boundaries, and that seems like an extremely
labor-intensive activity. And the times when I'd most need to check
boundaries are also the times when I might well be the most busy in
the cockpit even without taking time to look at charts.

As an exercise I've flown up and down the little VFR corridor above
KSAN. It works easily enough with moving maps to show me the airspace
boundaries. I haven't tried it using a chart exclusively; I guess I
can put that on my list of practice exercises. The last time, ATC
called me on it, but I pointed out that it's on the chart and I was in
the corridor, and I didn't hear from them after that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Most B & C, and lots of D airports have a VORTAC on the field. DME
> will tell you the distance from the DME station, which is usually near
> the center of the field, and the airspace.. Otherwise, you need to
> establish where you are using off-field VOR radials and/or chart denoted
> visual landmarks. Easy landmarks include airports, roads (especially
> intersections), cities, towers, stacks, power lines, water feature,
> etc... I haven't flown with an NDB in a long time, so I can't comment
> on using those.

I've noticed that those airspaces are arranged in such a way that one
could find them without too much trouble. The B airspaces usually
seem to be concentric rings, and if you know your radial position and
distance from the center of the rings, you can figure things out.

Unfortunately, some B airspaces seem to be much more complex, and
looking on the chart I can't figure out where they start and end.

For example, look at the terminal chart for KLAX. Some of the class B
boundaries are marked, such as SMO 252° or VNY 220° at the western
extremity. But then there's a northern border that isn't marked at
all. I see water, a building, and Griffith Park observatory nearby,
but that's it. And some of the internal boundaries are even worse. I
suppose that, in time, I could figure out a route to follow based on
the chart. But the problem is that the aircraft is moving while I'm
looking, and it takes more time to figure out where I am than it does
to be somewhere else.

Yes, I could plan carefully in advance. But then, if anything changes
my route, all the planning goes out the window, and I'm back to
looking at the chart.

A moving map solves all this, but I don't like being so dependent on a
moving map to safely navigate among the airspaces. I know it will
never fail in the sim (well, actually it did once, or I did something
wrong, I'm not sure), but I cannot guarantee this in real life.

> This is taught, tested, and developed during training, and good pilots
> put a lot of effort into location awareness. With practice, it becomes
> easy, possibly second nature.

Maybe. I suppose if you can pick and choose your route, you can find
one with lots of landmarks to use. But can you do that when you are
working towards a license?

> If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least
> monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near.

If you are flying through a VFR corridor that requires no ATC contact
(see the KSAN terminal chart, which has such a corridor and explicitly
says that no contact is required), do you routinely talk to ATC,
anyway? What do you request from them?

> If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd
> simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by.

If there is space to do that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
> with old charts...

Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do
you regularly replace as they expire?

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

[Mxsmanic]

flyncatfish writes:

> The thing that
> concerns me most when I fly X/C vfr is the TFR's that pop up suddenly,
> especially around election time. You can get a briefing and 10 minutes
> later the Pres. or VP or some Senator decides to change his destination
> to yours, and if you're not talking to somebody to let you know what's
> going on.., well good luck.

I've noticed that. One more thing to worry about. People are afraid
of their own shadows in the U.S. these days.

> I use to fly more vfr X/C's but not anymore.

Because ... ?

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

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.
> Slide rules are obsolete now, but they were (and remain) extremely
> well suited to some of the types of calculations that pilots and
> others must do rapidly under less than ideal conditions. Does anyone
> still use them for aviation?

Yes, it's usually required by instructors. See this entry (I wrote the
history section) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B

As an aside, I have spent a lot of effort trying to determine if
"wizwheel" or "whizwheel" was the original slang term. I preferred the
former, but I'm finding more evidence for the latter... derived from
"whiz" kids instead of "wizard" users. Not set in stone though.

Kev

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you
> see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems
> like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs.

give an example of where that would be a problem.

MOAs are no biggy; you talk to the nice controller just to be on the
safe side --- you don't even have to, but it's good form unless you
like surprises -- and you are set. When there are a bunch of controlled
airspace close together, your best bet is either to fly above them if
you don't want to talk to anybody, or better yet talk to the nice
controller and once again, you are set. When flying IFR it's even
simpler (since the whole idea of these complicated controlled airspace
is precisely to make the life of IFR folks simpler); I fly mostly around
San Francisco Bay Area where airspace is a tad complex, and it's not
really a problem; same thing when flying near LA; talk to the nice
controllers, follow the rules, piece of cake; Restricted airspace
might or might not be a problem; again, talk to the nice controller
and ask nicely; I have flown right smack overhead Edwards AFB a few
times to take a short cut to/from Las Vegas (I never tried to ask
about flying through the restricted airspaces north of Las Vegas
though, not all R- areas being created equal :-) )

again this is something that looks a lot more complicated from afar
than it actually becomes when you get a chance of doing it for real,

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> For example, look at the terminal chart for KLAX.

if you have the terminal chart for LA, and want to
fly through the thing VFR, just turn it over and
look at the VFR corridors and/or recommended routes
which are clearly defined, follow them and you
are set. Alternatively, file IFR and it's even
simpler.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do
> you regularly replace as they expire?

about 8 bucks; and I religiously replace the one where I fly regularly;
but there are other options: I started using the 'Air Chart Systems'
which is pretty neat; you get an atlas with all the sectional for the
western half (or eastern half) of the country, and regular cumulative
updates in the mail; when planning a flight I look at the latest
update to see what changed if anything along the route I want to
fly and I am set. I buy the terminal charts and AF/D separately though.

--Sylvain

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher writes:
>
>> A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.
>
> That's what I've configured, but it still is awkward. First, if you
> don't turn off all the cockpit details, there's a pause as the sim
> generates them when you change your viewpoint. Also, at least on my
> joystick, it's hard to position the hat precisely for 45-degree
> angles, and there is still some bizarre interaction with the throttle
> and other controls that I don't understand. I still use it sometimes,
> though. If it were instantaneous and easier to manipulate, it would
> be very convenient. Maybe then I could fly patterns a little bit
> easier.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sounds like your toy isn't very realistic and definately does not represent
real flight.

[BT]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.
>> Slide rules are obsolete now, but they were (and remain) extremely
>> well suited to some of the types of calculations that pilots and
>> others must do rapidly under less than ideal conditions. Does anyone
>> still use them for aviation?
>
> Yes, it's usually required by instructors. See this entry (I wrote the
> history section) :
>

Called a Whiz Wheel, because either only a "Whiz" could figure it out, or
because, once it is figured out, you said.. GeeWhiz.. that was easy..

A "WhizWheel" or E6B is nothing more than a circular slide rule.
In Jr High, when it was time to learn slide rules, I had problem with it. A
very wise math teacher handed me a circular slide rule and the instruction
manual and suggested I take it home for the weekend. Come Monday morning
math class, I was solving the problems before any one else.

When it came time for pilot training, they introduced the E6B. Ah Ha... I
knew what that was.. this is going to be easy.

BT

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
>> that it is mostly landmarks.
>
> I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?

You obviously have no idea how to read a map or a sectional.

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

[Greg B]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I don't do it a lot, but that is more because it is so awkward than
> because I don't want to. I'd certainly like to be able to just look
> off to the right or left, although the aircraft blocks a lot of the
> view (you can turn the aircraft off in the sim, but that's cheating a
> bit).
>
>> Still, you wouldn't get the effect of easily leaning over and looking
>> below you (unless you had a screen below you too. Which is an
>> interesting idea :-)
>
> What happens when you need to look down to the right? When I do that,
> all I see is the wing. In fact, the wing is a problem on the left
> side, too.

In real flying, you can turn the plane to get a better view of something
that is blocked by a wing, strut, cowling, etc. You can also change your
position to get a better view by leaning forward or whatever. One of the
maneuvers that we do during training and FR's are turns-around-a-point, bank
the plane and put the wingtip on a landmark and circle that landmark keeping
it in sight; probably not (as) easy to do on a sim.

As we look out the windows while flying, we'll see a lake there, a railroad
track running that way, a town over there and can easily figure out from the
current view where we are on the sectional. As we pass the lake, town, etc.,
we'll pick out other landmarks to determine our current position. It's not
that hard to do.

GPS just makes it easier but isn't required.

[BT]

>
> If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
> technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
> "looking out the window for landmarks."
>
> rg

more historically refered to as "pilotage"

BT

[BT]

>> Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
>> how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
>> out in the real world?
>
> How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
> as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
> the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
> indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.
>
>> If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
>> technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
>> "looking out the window for landmarks."
>
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
>

You call up flight service 5 days before your flight and give them your
flight plan, then on the day you fly your planned course is drawn on the
ground for you to follow, danger areas on either side are highlighted with
red boundries painted on the ground.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.

it is. You have basically two main designs still in use,
the E6B style and the ones like the CR5; the difference is
mainly in the way you compute the wind triangles (I use
both, because I enjoy slide rules in general, but frankly,
the plain E6B is more intuitive IMHO; the CR models also
allow more complex computations, but for practical purposes
the plain ol' aluminum E6B works fine (and doesn't melt when
left on the dashboard);

> Slide rules are obsolete now,

No they are not; well, ok, you are half right here: they
are considered obsolte but it's a darn shame. You can spot
miles away engineers who did learn with slide rules from
those who didn't, but I digress.

> Does anyone still use them for aviation?

I do; never runs out of batteries, always there, and easy
to use;

--Sylvain

[BT]

apx $8US, and repalced twice a year
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
>> with old charts...
>
> Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do
> you regularly replace as they expire?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

TLAR Navigation and pilotage..
I leave the plotter and the Whizwheel in the flight bag, that is for pre
mission planning.
After a career flying at 9nm/min and 500ft AGL, TALR Navigation works just
fine.
Yes, 9nm per minute is 540Knots.

You don't need a plotter to measure distance or direction.
Every VOR has a compass rose set to Magnetic north, estimate the direction
using that.
Finger lengths or knuckle lengths, learn what yours is.
Oh.. and if you have been taught correctly about charts.
Those lines on the chart used to measure latitude.. they have 1nm tick marks
on them.

Yes.. it is 60 nm from N35-00 to N36-00, regardless of the scale of the
chart.

BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > That depends on whether you are a competent pilot or not. But why do
> > you think it's necessary to "continually check them all"?
>
> So that you always know where you are.

You don't think there are any ways to know where you are other than
*continually* checking them *all*?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > You are mightily confused, my friend. The Turtle MOA is (mostly) in
> > California, not Arizona.
>
> The chart I'm looking at covers Arizona more than California, it
> seems.
>
> > Do you see Cadiz lake?
>
> Sure, it's huge.

I can see why some people around here are getting fed up with you.

rg

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:12:54 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.
>
>it is. You have basically two main designs still in use,
>the E6B style and the ones like the CR5; the difference is
>mainly in the way you compute the wind triangles (I use
>both, because I enjoy slide rules in general, but frankly,
>the plain E6B is more intuitive IMHO; the CR models also
>allow more complex computations, but for practical purposes
>the plain ol' aluminum E6B works fine (and doesn't melt when
>left on the dashboard);
>
>> Slide rules are obsolete now,
>
>No they are not; well, ok, you are half right here: they
>are considered obsolte but it's a darn shame. You can spot
>miles away engineers who did learn with slide rules from
>those who didn't, but I digress.
>
>> Does anyone still use them for aviation?
>
>I do; never runs out of batteries, always there, and easy
>to use;
>
Seen this?

http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html

Don

[Sylvain]

Don Tuite wrote:

> Seen this?
>
> http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html

this is wrong on so many levels :-))

thanks for the link!

--Sylvain

[Marty Shapiro]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> you look at the chart
> you look at the ground
> you navigate by pilotage
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
>> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
>> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
>> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
>> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
>> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
>> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
>> them?
>>
>> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
>> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
>> not always been available.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
>

It seems that GPS is leading to MORE intrusions of restricted
airspace. There was a notice sent out by FAASafety.gov based on 19
incursions into to the Nellis Air Force Base restricted airspace so far
this year. This notice was sent out October 19th and again on November
1st. They mentioned that most of the restricted airspace incursions were
with aircraft on the Beatty/Tonopah VFR corridor.

Two sentences from this notice: "It appears airmen are failing to use
basic VFR navigation and map reading skills. Instead, in most
circumstances, they are using GPS devices to navigate to and from Las
Vegas, NV.".

I've only flown the Beaty/Tonopah VFR corridor once. It took about 15
seconds with the charts to learn that all I needed to do to avoid this
restricted airspace was to stay west of highway 95. There was no need to
have a GPS, loran, VOR, or ADF to avoid penetrating the multiple restricted
airspaces north of Nellis.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> In real life, you don't need to hit buttons to look out the windows.
>
> In a sim, you need to hit buttons to look out the windows.
>

In YOUR sim you need to hit buttons to look out the windows. There
are sims which do not have that drawback.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
>> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
>> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
>
> A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.
>


It sure does, but I still don't get the spatial relationships I get in a
real cockpit. To be fair, I have one 21" monitor, not a sim-optimized
setup.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.
>

MSFS has a large tree in the center of the final approach path to the
busiest runway on my home field. <G>

The main landmarks, a small lake, two large plazas, a main road, and a
large trailer park are missing.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, some B airspaces seem to be much more complex, and
> looking on the chart I can't figure out where they start and end.

Generically speaking:

If you look closely, you'll see multiple rings from several airports, so
the overall airspace area might not be round, but it will be made up of
intersecting circles. In that case, you'd use several navaids, and
continually establish your position. Going around the space, I'll often
pick one or two easy to use points outside the space and fly to them,
safely taking me around the space.

Remember, you only care about the boundry you're near. <G>

> For example, look at the terminal chart for KLAX. Some of the class B
> boundaries are marked, such as SMO 252° or VNY 220° at the western
> extremity. But then there's a northern border that isn't marked at
> all. I see water, a building, and Griffith Park observatory nearby,
> but that's it.

I don't have that chart, but I's simply give a bit of extra cushion, or
get clearance.

> Yes, I could plan carefully in advance. But then, if anything changes
> my route, all the planning goes out the window, and I'm back to
> looking at the chart.

All addressed in training and ongoing practice. <G>

>
> Maybe. I suppose if you can pick and choose your route, you can find
> one with lots of landmarks to use. But can you do that when you are
> working towards a license?

Not only "can you", but you must! <G> Training cross countries are
chosen, planned and flown by the student.


>> If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least
>> monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near.
>
> If you are flying through a VFR corridor that requires no ATC contact
> (see the KSAN terminal chart, which has such a corridor and explicitly
> says that no contact is required), do you routinely talk to ATC,
> anyway?

If I'm obviously clear, no, but I usually will monitor them. I use
flight following as often as I can when flying VFR, so I'm usually on
with SOMEBODY. In this example case "somebody" would usually be "them".
If I'm flying a dedicated VFR corridor, there's really no reason to
bother ATC. Since VFR corridors are in very busy airspace, the
controllers are going to be busy enough without me. <G>

>What do you request from them?

Whatever I need, depending on the situation at hand. I take pride and
put a lot of thought and effort into my ATC contacts, so I'm rarely
denied. In fact, I can't remember my last ATC request that was denied,
and I deal with the NY & BOS folks often.


>> If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd
>> simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by.
>
> If there is space to do that.

With proper planning, there's ALWAYS space, or you don't do it. <G>

Remember, ALTITUDE is a very accurate tool to clear airspace. If you're
over or under a certain airspace, the horizontal component of your
location gains a bit of wiggle room.

Thorough pre-planning, including what-ifs and alternate routes and
airports, make it all go well and usually make in-flight decisions easy.
"Kicking the tires and lighting the fires" can drastically increase
in-flight workload. Experience and training teaches a good pilot what
degree of planning is necessary for the particular flight at hand.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
>> with old charts...
>
> Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do
> you regularly replace as they expire?

They range ~ $4 to $8. I average ~ $15/mo on charts and documentation.
I use government stuff, not the more expensive, value added
aftermarket information. I subscribe to VFR sectionals, WAC, IFR
charts, and plates for the northeastern USA. Avshop / Leftse.at mails
me books and charts as new versions are published. If I'm leaving the
area of my typical coverage, I'll get the correct stuff at the time I
need it.

We keep our GPS 196 updated, so frequencies and other data are easily
available in-flight from the unit.

Some items, like AF/D's and instrument stuff expire every 56 days, but
they're in the ~$4 range. VFR Sectionals are good for around 6 months
and cost around $8.

A VFR pilot really only "needs" current sectionals, and an AF/D for the
area(s) he or she is flying in. They barely need that if they're just
doing sightseeing hops around the local area.

I usually give my expired stuff to students, kids, and other interested
parties. A kid in my neighborhood literally WORE OUT an old chart I
gave him, carrying it around and reading it. He can now quiz me on IFR
chart symbols. <G> I think we have a duty to pass along our passions.
I'll never be a test pilot or an astronaut, but you never know about
him... <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

BT wrote:
>
> You call up flight service 5 days before your flight and give them your
> flight plan, then on the day you fly your planned course is drawn on the
> ground for you to follow, danger areas on either side are highlighted with
> red boundries painted on the ground.

You think that's funny?

I had a neighbor (who knows I'm a techie) ask me if the yellow first
down line on televised NFL games distracts the players.

I couldn't make that up!

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> He's being sarcastic. I hope... <G>
>
> OK
>
>> The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.
>
> Sending aircraft up for interception must be an incredibly expensive
> exercise (easily a million dollars a pop, I'd guess), so I should hope
> so.
>

Actually, in practice, I believe they send helicopters up first. Much
cheaper.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
> in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
> very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
> from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
> little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
> only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
> good your vision is in real life).

If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement?

You were the one that indicated that there aren't very many landmarks, even
though in real life there are, so this statement contradicts your other
posts.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
>> safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
>> you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?
>
> By looking out the window. I don't search for traffic lights or
> guardrails on a map. If I did, I'd be tumbling down a mountainside in
> no time.

But if you are driving somewhere you haven't been before, you might have a
map and use it to navigate to your destination, right?

Does this cause you to tumble down the mountainside?

> See above. It is done routinely. Additionally, full-motion
> simulators use collimated projections that place everything at optical
> infinity, and they work very well indeed, even though there is no
> depth perception at all.

There are many monocular cues to depth perception that are not effectively
simulated.

> It's required if the chart doesn't tell you at a glance how to
> determine the boundaries of the airspace.

No it isn't.

>> And certainly there is no harm in leaving yourself a bit of lattitude
>> if you don't have tools to do it with exacting precision.
>
> Except when you have forbidden areas threatening on both sides.

And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis, and even
before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't.

> I wonder if the advent of moving-map navigation aids has made pilots
> more prone to fly closely between and around controlled airspaces.
> Certainly it seems like a practical advantage of such devices,
> provided that they don't fail.
>
> I use an EHSI to fly patterns in the sim, but that is mainly because
> it's so hard to look out the side windows (I hope--at least I hope
> that visibility is a _lot_ better in a real aircraft).

Visibility out the side windows in real life is pretty good. I haven't
played with MSFS since the 98 version, but back then the default
perspective out the window in a Cessna was SIGNIFICANTLY different and more
restrictive than in the real world. I had to make several adjustments to
the settings that control the angle of perspective, and I had to reduce the
size of the control panel to even come close.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you
> see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems
> like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs.

MOAs are not restrictive in nature.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
>> much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
>> version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do.
>
> First someone tells me that a real plane is easier than MSFS, then I'm
> told that flying MSFS would not make me able to fly a real plane.
> These statements cannot be simultaneously true.


Sure they can if they are two different skill sets.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban
>> areas
>> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.
>
> Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
> derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
> York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
> the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
> let them see their house!
>
> And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
> reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
> the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
> etc.
>

I'm sure there are all sorts of things you can buy that will make MSFS more
realistic but right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of
aluminum in my hanger ready for flight. And I said MSFS not MSFS and
add-ons.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> I looked up "chart plotter" on Google, but I don't seem to be finding
> any mechanical devices, just software for PCs and the like.

I believe the type you are looking for is a "sectional plotter". A
sectional is a type of chart. The plotter is mated to the chart by the
scale of its ruler. I also have plotters for low-alt enroute charts.

> What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.

Slide rules are way old school. The Wizwheel is the moden version of
the slide rule.
When I was in D.C. at the Air and Space museum they had a WWII pilot's
Wizwheel. It was way more complicated than ours in that it had
calculations for dropping bombs. I want to say there were 2 or 3 wheels
on it. I guess one guy in a cockpit flighting and dropping bombs needs
a pretty compact computer.

-Robert

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> You can spot miles away engineers who did learn with
> slide rules from those who didn't

Yeah, we have greyer hair -- what is left of it...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> MSFS has a large tree in the center of the final approach path to the
> busiest runway on my home field. <G>
>
> The main landmarks, a small lake, two large plazas, a main road, and a
> large trailer park are missing.

Well, obviously your airport area is wrong and MSFS is right...

[Jim Logajan]

Don Tuite > wrote:
> Seen this?
>
> http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n909es/virtual-n909-es.html

Boy does that bring back memories!

BTW, I still use my pocket-size plastic circular slide rule on occasion
because the back of it has the periodic table of the elements and the
plastic insert has a whole bunch of conversion constants for length, area,
mass, force, volume, velocity, flow rate, pressure, energy, and a bunch of
common physical constants and common equations.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
> > http://www.flightstore.co.uk/images/prod/prop_1_1241.jpg
>
> Thanks. Still looks a bit awkward to use in flight. I mean, you have
> to manipulate the device and the chart at the same time, and you have
> no table, and you still have to fly the plane. It looks very awkward.
>
> > You do your flight planning before take-off.
>
> But what if the plan must change during the flight?

That's part of the PTS requirement for a private pilot checkride before
they get their certificate. You start out with a great plan to go
somewhere and after they get past their 3rd checkpoint or so, you
change their destination. The applicant is required to give you
1)heading to new destiation 2) ETA (not time enroute) 3) fuel required.
-Robert, CFII

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of
> aluminum in my hanger ready for flight.

My co-owner thinks he just found us a faster pile of aluminum.

I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect" as I care... <G>

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> No they are not; well, ok, you are half right here: they
> are considered obsolte but it's a darn shame. You can spot
> miles away engineers who did learn with slide rules from
> those who didn't, but I digress.

This particular aviation use is a good example of situations in which
slide rules still have advantages, but unfortunately these situations
are rare.

> I do; never runs out of batteries, always there, and easy
> to use;

True for slide rules in general, but they seem to have disappeared
just the same. People like new and shiny gadgets.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Sounds like your toy isn't very realistic and definately does not represent
> real flight.

It is much more similar than different.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement?

We sent a man successfully to the moon without ever having been there.

> You were the one that indicated that there aren't very many landmarks, even
> though in real life there are, so this statement contradicts your other
> posts.

It doesn't matter how many you see in real life if none of them are
referenced on the chart.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> But if you are driving somewhere you haven't been before, you might have a
> map and use it to navigate to your destination, right?

Very rarely. I usually use a GPS. If I don't have that, I follow
signs. If I must resort to a map, I have to pull over and stop the
car.

> Does this cause you to tumble down the mountainside?

No, because I'm not moving when I consult the map. Unfortunately,
stopping an aircraft in mid-flight is much more difficult.

> There are many monocular cues to depth perception that are not effectively
> simulated.

Which ones?

> And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis, and even
> before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't.

If so, you don't seem to be willing or able to explain it, since
that's the whole purpose of this thread.

> Visibility out the side windows in real life is pretty good. I haven't
> played with MSFS since the 98 version, but back then the default
> perspective out the window in a Cessna was SIGNIFICANTLY different and more
> restrictive than in the real world. I had to make several adjustments to
> the settings that control the angle of perspective, and I had to reduce the
> size of the control panel to even come close.

Things have changed a lot since FS 98.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> In YOUR sim you need to hit buttons to look out the windows. There
> are sims which do not have that drawback.

Unfortunately, of the PC-based sims, the others have many drawbacks
that MSFS does not.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> MOAs are not restrictive in nature.

I said "restricted areas or MOAs."

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> You don't think there are any ways to know where you are other than
> *continually* checking them *all*?

There are other ways, such as dead reckoning, or the use of a single,
highly reliable reference, such as a set of latitude and longitude
coordinates. Some of these methods are easier to use than others.
Longitude and latitude work best with a moving-map device.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Sure they can if they are two different skill sets.

If they are sufficiently different. I'm not convinced that they are.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Not only "can you", but you must! <G> Training cross countries are
> chosen, planned and flown by the student.

How far do you have to fly, and in what way, in order for it to count
as a "cross-country" flight?

> Whatever I need, depending on the situation at hand. I take pride and
> put a lot of thought and effort into my ATC contacts, so I'm rarely
> denied. In fact, I can't remember my last ATC request that was denied,
> and I deal with the NY & BOS folks often.

I've read that Class B airspaces are not happy to see GA traffic.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> about 8 bucks; and I religiously replace the one where I fly regularly

So you just need one sectional that you use for the majority of your
flying?

> but there are other options: I started using the 'Air Chart Systems'
> which is pretty neat; you get an atlas with all the sectional for the
> western half (or eastern half) of the country, and regular cumulative
> updates in the mail; when planning a flight I look at the latest
> update to see what changed if anything along the route I want to
> fly and I am set.

How much does that cost?

> I buy the terminal charts and AF/D separately though.

How much are they?

How much do you spend a month overall just updating charts?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> We keep our GPS 196 updated, so frequencies and other data are easily
> available in-flight from the unit.

How much does it cost to keep the GPS up to date, and is all the data
in proprietary formats that you have to purchase from the manufacturer
or a single monopoly source?

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I'll never be a test pilot or an astronaut, but you never know about
> him... <G>

Tell him to bring his questions here, and he'll probably end up as an
accountant.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Sounds like your toy isn't very realistic and definately does not
>> represent real flight.
>
> It is much more similar than different.
>
How on Earth would you have the slightest idea as to whether it is or
isn't????

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Judah writes:
>
>> And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis,
>> and even before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't.
>
> If so, you don't seem to be willing or able to explain it, since
> that's the whole purpose of this thread.
>
It has been explained numerous times already. It's called *training*.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Sure they can if they are two different skill sets.
>
> If they are sufficiently different. I'm not convinced that they are.
>

Well let's look at qualifications to see, between the two of us is best
qualified to make that judgment.

I own and have used MSFS 2004.

You own and have used MSFS 2004.

I hold a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration that says I'm
qualified to operate both Aircraft Single Engine-Land and
Rotorcraft-Helicopter.

You own and have used MSFS 2004.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> True for slide rules in general, but they seem to have disappeared
> just the same. People like new and shiny gadgets.

and they are becoming difficult to find; I have been shopping for
a decent slide rule (and a sextant by the way -- no, I am not
happy with what westmarine has in stock) for a while... you do
find stuff like that in garage sales sometimes when you are lucky
though.

--Sylvain

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> Not only "can you", but you must! <G> Training cross countries are
>> chosen, planned and flown by the student.
>
> How far do you have to fly, and in what way, in order for it to count
> as a "cross-country" flight?

(2) Except as provided in Sec. 61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night
flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes--
(i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total
distance; and


(i) 5 hours of solo cross-country time;
(ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of
at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations;
and

>
>> Whatever I need, depending on the situation at hand. I take pride and
>> put a lot of thought and effort into my ATC contacts, so I'm rarely
>> denied. In fact, I can't remember my last ATC request that was denied,
>> and I deal with the NY & BOS folks often.
>
> I've read that Class B airspaces are not happy to see GA traffic.
>

Class B ATC controllers are much like this newsgroup. If you have a clue
there usually isn't a problem.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> about 8 bucks; and I religiously replace the one where I fly regularly
>
> So you just need one sectional that you use for the majority of your
> flying?

yes, a sectional covers quite a bit of territory; now of course,
Murphy's law has it that you will always live near the boundary of
two charts and hunce will need to buy both of them each time :-)

> How much does that cost?

I don't remember, I pay an annual subscription, except that it
is drastically cheaper than keeping the equivalent sectional
up to date; you can look it up yourself here:
http://www.airchart.com/

>
>> I buy the terminal charts and AF/D separately though.
>
> How much are they?

terminal about 8 bucks too; and the AF/D booklet
about 5 bucks (but it covers a larger territory than a
sectional)

>
> How much do you spend a month overall just updating charts?

I don't really want to know :-)))

--Sylvain

[Jim Macklin]

What kind of slide rule are you looking to get?



"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
| Mxsmanic wrote:
|
| > True for slide rules in general, but they seem to have
disappeared
| > just the same. People like new and shiny gadgets.
|
| and they are becoming difficult to find; I have been
shopping for
| a decent slide rule (and a sextant by the way -- no, I am
not
| happy with what westmarine has in stock) for a while...
you do
| find stuff like that in garage sales sometimes when you
are lucky
| though.
|
| --Sylvain

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dave Stadt writes:
>> Sounds like your toy isn't very realistic and definitely
>> does not represent real flight.
>
> It is much more similar than different.

Your reference point re real flight...is??? I've been flying
since 1975, am instrument-rated, have shot a legal (no cheat) ILS
approach in conditions where a Citation and a King Air missed in
sequence in front of me. For-real flying. Slower approach speed
made the difference, and I even planned on that to surprised
success. Shot a similar one at Charlie West. Exactly on
centerline, but all one dot high, my preference. The viz was so
bad, Ground had trouble giving me taxi instructions. Couldn't
see me.

Conversely, have all versions of the MS toy; was 1.0 around 1983?
10 joysticks and 3 control wheels/rudder pedals. Half-dozen
utilities to tweak the flight models to utter frustration. Yet I
cannot fly an idiot visual pattern in the M$ toy with a 172-class
airplane. Please help me! Bill Gates is out to slowly destroy
my confidence aloft.

F--

[Kev]

Sylvain wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > True for slide rules in general, but they seem to have disappeared
> > just the same. People like new and shiny gadgets.

Actually slide rules are still in use in medical, photo, printing,
building situations. It's a lot easier, cheaper, safer to carry around
a small plastic disc to make common calcuations or lookups.

> and they are becoming difficult to find; I have been shopping for
> a decent slide rule (and a sextant by the way -- no, I am not
> happy with what westmarine has in stock) for a while... you do
> find stuff like that in garage sales sometimes when you are lucky
> though.

I assume you belong to the Oughtred Society for the preservation of
slide rules and other mechanical calculators?

www.oughtred.org

And of course the International Slide Rule Group?

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sliderule/

Best, Kev

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement?
>
> We sent a man successfully to the moon without ever having been there.

What exactly does that have to do with your claimed ability to compare two
experiences even though you haven't experienced both of them?

Are you a Voyeur?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> But if you are driving somewhere you haven't been before, you might
>> have a map and use it to navigate to your destination, right?
>
> Very rarely. I usually use a GPS. If I don't have that, I follow
> signs. If I must resort to a map, I have to pull over and stop the
> car.

What, exactly, do you see on your GPS? Do you see, perhaps, an electrically
depicted map? How is that you are able to follow a map and set of
directions written on a 2" LCD screen, and yet you can't do the same if it
is on paper?

Perhaps you are handicapped in some way.

>> Does this cause you to tumble down the mountainside?
>
> No, because I'm not moving when I consult the map. Unfortunately,
> stopping an aircraft in mid-flight is much more difficult.

Not in the Sim.

>> And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis, and
>> even before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't.
>
> If so, you don't seem to be willing or able to explain it, since
> that's the whole purpose of this thread.

No, we have explained it numerous times. You simply refuse to accept our
explanation as a possibility because you have a differing experience. But
your differing experience is based on a simulation, which does not
accurately simulate the full piloting experience. And it's based on
assumptions that are innacurate and without basis.

Your refusal to accept our explanation is a failure on your part, not ours.

> Things have changed a lot since FS 98.

Can you be more specific? What is different between FS98 and the latest
version of MSFS?

The differences that I am aware of are: Multi-Player/Networkable , ATC
Simulation, Traffic Simulation, additional aircraft (eg: Mooney). None of
these would seem to relate to the simulation experience itself or the
position of the panel and windows on the screen...

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> MOAs are not restrictive in nature.
>
> I said "restricted areas or MOAs."

Yes, but you also seem to be extraordinarily concerned with the possibility
of flying through a non-restrictive area.

[Judah]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> Sure they can if they are two different skill sets.
>>
>> If they are sufficiently different. I'm not convinced that they are.
>>
>
> Well let's look at qualifications to see, between the two of us is best
> qualified to make that judgment.
>
> I own and have used MSFS 2004.
>
> You own and have used MSFS 2004.
>
> I hold a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration that says
> I'm qualified to operate both Aircraft Single Engine-Land and
> Rotorcraft-Helicopter.
>
> You own and have used MSFS 2004.
>
>

It should be pointed out that in order to behold that certificate, you had
to have a certain number of hours of training with a certified instructor,
and then had to demonstrate your ability to perform certain manuevers
within certain standard levels of tolerance.

Manic had to shell out $30 on EBay.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I've read that Class B airspaces are not happy to see GA traffic.

From my experience, Class B controllers are happy to service traffic that
behaves professionally, regardless of what part of the FARs they are
operating under. I have personally heard Class B controllers ball out Airline
Pilots for failing to pay proper attention to a call, and for failing to
comply with an instruction in a timely fashion (ie: after three or four
acknowledged requests).

I have also heard them treat pilots in trainer planes with respect and
gratitude.

The controller has a job to do, and he expects the planes in his airspace to
be monitoring his transmissions, and to follow his directions for procedures,
altitudes, and headings in a timely fashion. Anyone who complies is welcomed.
Even pilots who make a mistake are treated well and mildly corrected. But if
a controller has to repeat every instruction 3 or 4 times, he's going to
start getting very annoyed.

[Sylvain]

B A R R Y wrote:
> I think mechanical E6B's are very useful, I don't feel the need to own
> an electronic version. However, computers and calculators have done
> much for science and engineering.

I am not advocating using sliderules at work (though, it can
be fun), but folks who started with them have a different
mind set when it comes to numbers, like a better understanding
of what constitutes significant figures and order of magnitudes...
a bit for the same reason glider pilots make better powered pilots
(ok, give me some credit for trying to bringing it back on
topic :-)

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Kev wrote:

> I assume you belong to the Oughtred Society for the preservation of
> slide rules and other mechanical calculators?
>
> www.oughtred.org
>
> And of course the International Slide Rule Group?
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sliderule/

to my great shame, no I do not belong (yet) to any
of these fine organizations. Thanks for the URLs!

--Sylvain

[Wizard of Draws]

On 11/2/06 10:54 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" > wrote:

> Wizard of Draws writes:
>
>> VOR triangulation. It's technical.
>
> It can't be that technical. I've done it (regularly in the days
> before GPS). It's the map reading that's awkward, I think. It sure
> was for me (I wasn't using huge folding charts, either, but it was
> still awkward).

If you can't read a map, or even figure out that one can be folded to make
it convenient to read in a cockpit, VORs and how to use them in conjunction
with a map is obviously much too technical. Perhaps you shouldn't be playing
with maps anyway Sparky, you could get a paper cut.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[A Lieberma]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:ziN2h.754$7F3.71
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect" as I care... <G>

Took me three years to get to the point where I got every switch knob and
button working.

Next up will be the interior when I get rich and famous for the money.

Allen

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Sounds like your toy isn't very realistic and definately does not
>> represent
>> real flight.
>
> It is much more similar than different.

Not even close. You have no idea having absolutely no actual flight
experience.

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

[A Lieberma]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:hjV2h.21642$TV3.21593
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Not even close. You have no idea having absolutely no actual flight
> experience.

Heh heh, been through this song and dance before I decided he isn't worth
my time and efforts.

Dave, save your wisdom for those more deserving AND more appreciative.....

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I think mechanical E6B's are very useful, I don't feel the need to own
> an electronic version. However, computers and calculators have done
> much for science and engineering.

Both good and bad, unfortunately.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> How on Earth would you have the slightest idea as to whether it is or
> isn't????

Because, as I have previously explained, I study. While neonates may
be constrained to learn only through direct experience and trial and
error, older human beings have the option of looking things up.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> What, exactly, do you see on your GPS?

My coordinates, my heading and speed, and an arrow pointing to my
destination heading if I've entered one into the GPS.

> Do you see, perhaps, an electrically depicted map?

No.

> How is that you are able to follow a map and set of directions
> written on a 2" LCD screen, and yet you can't do the same if it
> is on paper?

See above. I don't use a map on the GPS.

> Not in the Sim.

If you stop the simulator, the simulation is less accurate.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Yes, but you also seem to be extraordinarily concerned with the possibility
> of flying through a non-restrictive area.

Sometimes MOAs are active, and there may be dangerous activities going
on inside.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> It should be pointed out that in order to behold that certificate, you had
> to have a certain number of hours of training with a certified instructor,
> and then had to demonstrate your ability to perform certain manuevers
> within certain standard levels of tolerance.

But you don't have to be able to fly a plane safely, as so many
accidents prove.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> (2) Except as provided in Sec. 61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night
> flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes--
> (i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total
> distance; and

Sounds like just crossing Phoenix would qualify.

> (i) 5 hours of solo cross-country time;
> (ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
> total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
> and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of
> at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations;
> and

Sounds like crossing Phoenix might _still_ qualify.

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

[Happy Dog]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> It should be pointed out that in order to behold that certificate, you
>> had
>> to have a certain number of hours of training with a certified
>> instructor,
>> and then had to demonstrate your ability to perform certain manuevers
>> within certain standard levels of tolerance.
>
> But you don't have to be able to fly a plane safely, as so many
> accidents prove.

Name a test of a skill, that involves potential great danger, that is
infallible. Idiot.

m

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> How on Earth would you have the slightest idea as to whether it is or
>> isn't????
>
> Because, as I have previously explained, I study. While neonates may
> be constrained to learn only through direct experience and trial and
> error, older human beings have the option of looking things up.
>
The error that you repeatedly make is thinking that reading alone will
give you insights into a physical experience. It won't. All pilots study,
and are well-read on the topic of flight; if they weren't, they wouldn't
even get so far as to be student pilots. In addition to the reading, we
have practice; many hours of translating the theory of flight into the
physical reality of flight under the guidance of those who have flown and
can correct our misunderstanding. It isn't until we have demonstrated
proficiency as well as a level of knowledge that we are granted a
certificate. Regardless of your high opinion of yourself, you are not
going to even come close to flying with MSFS. To make matters worse, you
don't even read the references that you're given that answer your
primitive questions, preferring to be spoon-fed in a newsgroup, but you
lack the level of knowledge necessary to understand the answers that are
given. So, to put things into your frame of reference, if we are neonates,
you haven't even managed your first cell division.

Neil

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Because, as I have previously explained, I study. While neonates may
> be constrained to learn only through direct experience and trial and
> error, older human beings have the option of looking things up.

If you study and look things up, why do you keep asking questions on this
newsgroup that have already been answered elsewhere? The implication is that
you do NOT study or look things up, you simply wait for people to relay
information to you at your convenience.

[Don Poitras]

In rec.aviation.piloting B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:23:59 GMT, A Lieberma >
> wrote:

> >B A R R Y > wrote in news:ziN2h.754$7F3.71
> :
> >
> >> I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect" as I care... <G>
> >
> >Took me three years to get to the point where I got every switch knob and
> >button working.

> We kind of gave up on the parking brake. <G>

That's one of those things that you think is just an extravagance. Until
you pull up to a foreign airport, taxi up to the fuel tank, shut down
the engine, and then realize that there is a slight slope to the ramp
and if you let go the brakes, you will roll into the tank. "Ummm... hello...
Podunk Unicom?... Anybody home?..."

> >Next up will be the interior when I get rich and famous for the money.

> I feel your pain...

--
Don Poitras

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> My coordinates, my heading and speed, and an arrow pointing to my
> destination heading if I've entered one into the GPS.

How do you have time to look without hitting a mountain?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> But you don't have to be able to fly a plane safely, as so many
> accidents prove.

You have to be able to demonstrate that you can fly a plane safely before
getting your certificate. That is the stated detailed mission of the
Practical Test Standards.

The accidents only prove that human beings don't always do what they can.
Perhaps they encounter situations that are beyond their control and/or
capability, perhaps they make mistakes, or perhaps they are arrogant cowboys
and decide they can do what they want.

The same could be said about automobile accidents. The holder of a driver's
license has demonstrated that the s/he can drive safely and is aware of the
basic rules. And yet, the idea that those rules can be broken is so
institutionalized, the government has produced a "point" system that allows
drivers to be CAUGHT as many as 12 times before their privileges are taken
away. The system is so institutionalized that some believe certain speed
zones have been installed not for safety, but for revenue production.

The same cannot be said of airspace safety.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If you study and look things up, why do you keep asking questions on this
> newsgroup that have already been answered elsewhere?

I like to have multiple sources of information. It's risky to trust a
single source.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How do you have time to look without hitting a mountain?

That is not a possibility in a car (I assume you were talking about
using a GPS in a car).

Also, the GPS is right above the dashboard, so I can see what it says
and look outside at the same time.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> The accidents only prove that human beings don't always do what they can.
> Perhaps they encounter situations that are beyond their control and/or
> capability, perhaps they make mistakes, or perhaps they are arrogant cowboys
> and decide they can do what they want.

It is also both possible and probable that the tests given to
prospective pilots are insufficiently accurate in predicting the
ability of a pilot to handle real-world situations.

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

[Jim Macklin]

The parking brake on the BE 23/24 and 76 uses a lock that
stops the master cylinder from bleeding fluid back from the
brake assemblies. It is a simple device. The brakes are
not designed to be used for long term parking since they do
not compensate for temperature changes. If the hot brakes
are set and then cool the pressure and therefore the brake
releases. Even if the brakes are cool, over the night, the
air temperature will drop and the brakes release. Worse, if
you set the parking brake when it is cool or cold and then
the temperature goes up, the pressure increases locking the
brake solid and can damage the system. Often the only way
to get the parking brake to release is to open the brake
bleeder valve and that will require time and a mechanic to
re-bleed the brakes.

The manual says that the brake is for short term use, such
as keeping the plane stationary while you get chocks.

To set the brake, apply pressure with the toe brake and
then gently pull the control out, you're just moving a small
valve that takes very little force. To release the brake,
apply pressure with the toe brakes to unload the valve and
then push the control in. The control should have about 1/8
to 1/4 inch cushion and the knob will not sit at rest
against the panel.


"B A R R Y" > wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:23:59 GMT, A Lieberma
>
| wrote:
|
| >B A R R Y > wrote in
news:ziN2h.754$7F3.71
| :
| >
| >> I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect"
as I care... <G>
| >
| >Took me three years to get to the point where I got every
switch knob and
| >button working.
|
| We kind of gave up on the parking brake. <G>
|
| >Next up will be the interior when I get rich and famous
for the money.
|
| I feel your pain...

[BT]

> Two sentences from this notice: "It appears airmen are failing to use
> basic VFR navigation and map reading skills. Instead, in most
> circumstances, they are using GPS devices to navigate to and from Las
> Vegas, NV.".
>
> I've only flown the Beaty/Tonopah VFR corridor once. It took about 15
> seconds with the charts to learn that all I needed to do to avoid this
> restricted airspace was to stay west of highway 95. There was no need to
> have a GPS, loran, VOR, or ADF to avoid penetrating the multiple
> restricted
> airspaces north of Nellis.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I got that notice also, too many people hit "direct" on the GPS and then
never look at a chart.
Not all handheld GPS will have the airspace, especially if it is a cheap
"not intended for aviation" handheld.

BT

[Jose[_1_]]

Mixmaster said:
>> Because, as I have previously explained, I study. While neonates may
>> be constrained to learn only through direct experience and trial and
>> error, older human beings have the option of looking things up.

There are things that have to be experienced in order to understand them.

Consider for a moment the notion of consciousness and "artificial
intellegence". I have no doubt that one day computers could be
programmed to converse in English. They will have huge databanks of
words, appropriate useages, rules for formulating replies, rules for
inferring context, files full of slang terms, and all sorts of stuff
like that so that one could type ordinary English into the machine, have
a conversation, and wonder if the computer on the other end is really a
machine or an actual human being. With enough computing power and a big
enough rule set, such a machine would be able to do far better than
Eliza's "answer a question with a reformulated question" paradigm. You
could, for example, start typing about baseball, and it would seem like
you were talking with a real fan, who though he may not know everything
about the game, is interested in and able to fill in the gaps.

Does this machine =understand= baseball?

I would say no. Until it has actually swung a bat and run around the
bases, heard the roar of the crowd, eaten a hot dog at the stadium,
fingered the trading cards and chewed the bubblegum, and walked across
the empty field after a game, this machine does =not= "understand"
baseball. It has merely evidenced appropriate responses to a stream of
ASCII.

This is not "understanding".

And this is where, in the context of aviation, you sit. You don't
=understand= flying, even though you may type as if you think you do.

If you want to understand what it is that makes a pilot want to fly, you
need to actually fly through the air yourself. It's visceral. It's
real. It's what life is made of. There is no alternative to real
understanding. Now, having actually done so, you may disagree, you may
find it's not for you, you may find you were right all along. But you
will =understand= in a way you couldn't possibly understand now just why
you were right. Alternatively, you may discover that you were actually
wrong, but this way you will understand in your soul what the big deal
is about, and you will see why you were wrong in a way that no amount of
Usenet posting will show you.

Take a flight. Just one. Then come back.

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.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> It is also both possible and probable that the tests given to
> prospective pilots are insufficiently accurate in predicting the
> ability of a pilot to handle real-world situations.

What, exactly, is the probability of that? And what is your source of
information to have defined that probability?

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:35:04 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>> I think mechanical E6B's are very useful, I don't feel the need to own
>> an electronic version. However, computers and calculators have done
>> much for science and engineering.
>
>I am not advocating using sliderules at work (though, it can
>be fun), but folks who started with them have a different
>mind set when it comes to numbers, like a better understanding
>of what constitutes significant figures and order of magnitudes...
>a bit for the same reason glider pilots make better powered pilots
>(ok, give me some credit for trying to bringing it back on
>topic :-)
>
Carrying the characteristic in your head while slipsticking through a
lengthy calculation was an invitation to be off by orders of magnitude
when you were finished. What the engineering sliderule did positively
for us silverbacks was to ingrain in us a sense of "significant
figures" and a dislike for false precision.

I think the virtue of the E6B is less it's ability to rapidly perform
time/distance/fuel calculations than the presence of its little
DENALT and TAS windows.

I'm not sure of the value of the wind triangle calculator unless
you're navigating a bomber from Leeds to Ploesti on a cloudy night
raid.

Don

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> What, exactly, is the probability of that?

Very high.

> And what is your source of information to have defined that probability?

It is a longstanding problem with all types of standardized tests.
They never precisely represent the skills or knowledge they are
supposed to be testing.

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

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Judah wrote:
> What, exactly, is the probability of that? And what is your source of
> information to have defined that probability?

Microsoft Probability Simulator, of course...

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> [...] Definitely a rich man's hobby.

Yes and no. Certainly there are ways to spend a lot of money on
flying, but that goes for boating as well.

People are always surprised to hear that a good used airplane is about
the same price as a fully loaded van or SUV.

I think everyone should be A) drafted in the military for two years,
and B) taught to boat, drive and fly. Then we might get a better and
more informed voting public.

YMMV ;-)

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Yes and no. Certainly there are ways to spend a lot of money on
> flying, but that goes for boating as well.

Boating is a rich man's hobby, too!

> People are always surprised to hear that a good used airplane is about
> the same price as a fully loaded van or SUV.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. What about fuel, and
insurance, and maintenance, and charts and databases, not to mention
the cost up front of just getting a license and keeping current with
medical exams and what-not?

> I think everyone should be A) drafted in the military for two years,
> and B) taught to boat, drive and fly. Then we might get a better and
> more informed voting public.

Many of the most uninformed people would never be able to learn to fly
or even to boat; a lot of them have difficulty with driving. And they
would be useless in the military for anything other than cannon
fodder. However, many of these people don't vote to begin with.

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

[A Lieberma]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> I know. <G> Ours doesn't hold the pressure properly.

Do you find that you have to bleed the brake lines on a rather "frequent
basis"?

I have no leaks anywhere, and in the past 6 months had the brake lines bled
3 times to regain a full break.

In the midst of my annual. Posted my progress in rec.aviation.owning.
Definately not one of my cheaper annuals coming up....

Allen

[A Lieberma]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> No, but we replaced two of four master cylinders last December at
> annual, as we were losing about 4 ounces of fluid every 6 weeks or so.
> We found our fluid in the belly. <G>

Hmmm, at least you had something tangible. No fluid to be found anywhere.

> I'll watch for your reports. We're due in December, but have no real
> squawks other than we need main tires. We did a starter in July. Two
> years ago, we did all the scat tubing, door seals, and some other
> small parts.

I had a major overhaul 3 years ago, so I was hoping that the engine would
have been reasonably maintenance free. Can't believe that I am talking
high copper in the oil and low cylinder compressions after three years of
overhaul.

I fly at least once a week, no ground runs, so it's not from the lack of
use.

I need to do the inner door seals (white in color) next, but that seem to
be a part of the interior and not so easily replaceable. I had my door
seals (black in color) on the doors replaced 2 years ago.

Allen

[flyncatfish]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The parking brake on the BE 23/24 and 76 uses a lock that
> stops the master cylinder from bleeding fluid back from the
> brake assemblies. It is a simple device. The brakes are
> not designed to be used for long term parking since they do
> not compensate for temperature changes. If the hot brakes
> are set and then cool the pressure and therefore the brake
> releases. Even if the brakes are cool, over the night, the
> air temperature will drop and the brakes release. Worse, if
> you set the parking brake when it is cool or cold and then
> the temperature goes up, the pressure increases locking the
> brake solid and can damage the system. Often the only way
> to get the parking brake to release is to open the brake
> bleeder valve and that will require time and a mechanic to
> re-bleed the brakes.
>
-snip

I think temperature extremes like you mentioned, complexity, and weight
considerations are all reasons why the russians dropped hydraulics in
favor of pneumatics on many of their aircraft. I have a russian Yak 52
and the starting, brake, and flap systems are all pneumatic. It's nice
not to have to worry about whether you battery will crank in the
morning.

FlynCatfish

[Jim Macklin]

True. Now if the British would just give up on Lucas
electrics!



"flyncatfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The parking brake on the BE 23/24 and 76 uses a lock
that
| > stops the master cylinder from bleeding fluid back from
the
| > brake assemblies. It is a simple device. The brakes
are
| > not designed to be used for long term parking since they
do
| > not compensate for temperature changes. If the hot
brakes
| > are set and then cool the pressure and therefore the
brake
| > releases. Even if the brakes are cool, over the night,
the
| > air temperature will drop and the brakes release.
Worse, if
| > you set the parking brake when it is cool or cold and
then
| > the temperature goes up, the pressure increases locking
the
| > brake solid and can damage the system. Often the only
way
| > to get the parking brake to release is to open the brake
| > bleeder valve and that will require time and a mechanic
to
| > re-bleed the brakes.
| >
| -snip
|
| I think temperature extremes like you mentioned,
complexity, and weight
| considerations are all reasons why the russians dropped
hydraulics in
| favor of pneumatics on many of their aircraft. I have a
russian Yak 52
| and the starting, brake, and flap systems are all
pneumatic. It's nice
| not to have to worry about whether you battery will crank
in the
| morning.
|
| FlynCatfish
|

[Morgans[_2_]]

"flyncatfish" > wrote

> I have a russian Yak 52
> and the starting, brake, and flap systems are all pneumatic. It's nice
> not to have to worry about whether you battery will crank in the
> morning.

How does the air make the brakes work? Please don't say very well! <ba-doomp>

More specifically, do they have a spring that puts the brake on, with the air
pressure pushing the brakes off, or more like a truck brake, with one air source
pushing the brakes off, and another pushing the brakes back on?

I had always thought aircraft parking brakes were kinda' dumb. It would make
sense to have a system like cars, with a cable putting the parking brake on,
plus the advantage of having an emergency brake, but there goes the weight issue
again, I guess. No wonder that airplanes have to use wheel chocks.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> What, exactly, is the probability of that?
>
> Very high.


Obviously not. The vast majority of pilots are never involved in an
accident.


>
>> And what is your source of information to have defined that probability?
>
> It is a longstanding problem with all types of standardized tests.
> They never precisely represent the skills or knowledge they are
> supposed to be testing.

You pass or fail based on your ability to show the examiner that you have
mastered a set of skills. The skills tested are those that the particular
certificate authorize you to carry out.

Virtually all aircraft accident fall into two categories mechanical and
pilot error. As for the mechanical, **** breaks nothing made by man is
perfect because of this we even train to deal with mechanical failures and
usually walk away from them.

Pilot error happens when a pilot either fails to apply what they have
learned or steps outside of the envelope of skill they have mastered.
Neither of these mean there was anything wrong with the test it simply means
that humans aren't perfect and that of course includes the tests.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> (2) Except as provided in Sec. 61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night
>> flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes--
>> (i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total
>> distance; and
>
> Sounds like just crossing Phoenix would qualify.
>
>> (i) 5 hours of solo cross-country time;
>> (ii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles
>> total distance, with full-stop landings at a minimum of three points,
>> and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of
>> at least 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations;
>> and
>
> Sounds like crossing Phoenix might _still_ qualify.
>
> --

Well you have proven that you can't even read a map. I'm not familiar with
the Phoenix are so I opened up AOPA Real-Time Flight Planner and picked two
airports that were pretty much at opposite sides of the Phoenix area
(Pleasant Valley P48 & Casa Grande Municipal KCGZ) and they are only 56.2
miles from each other.

[flyncatfish]

Morgans wrote:
> "flyncatfish" > wrote
>
> > I have a russian Yak 52
> > and the starting, brake, and flap systems are all pneumatic. It's nice
> > not to have to worry about whether you battery will crank in the
> > morning.
>
> How does the air make the brakes work? Please don't say very well! <ba-doomp>
>
> More specifically, do they have a spring that puts the brake on, with the air
> pressure pushing the brakes off, or more like a truck brake, with one air source
> pushing the brakes off, and another pushing the brakes back on?

That's a good question. I think it's more like a truck brake. The
plane uses differential braking of the main wheels to turn/brake. The
plane has a castoring nose wheel. Braking is actuated by depressing a
brake handle on the stick. Air pressure is directed to the brakes via
the rudder pedals. You push the rudder pedal on the side you want to
turn toward and then start depressing the brake handle on the stick in
short 1 second intervals. You can hear the air going to the brakes
like an air brake on a truck. To release the brake you just release the
handle on the stick. I'm not sure but I think there are springs that
pull the brake shoes away from inside the brake drum when the air
pressure is released. You got me thinking and I'll see if I can confirm
that because that's something I should know.
>
> I had always thought aircraft parking brakes were kinda' dumb. It would make
> sense to have a system like cars, with a cable putting the parking brake on,
> plus the advantage of having an emergency brake, but there goes the weight issue
> again, I guess. No wonder that airplanes have to use wheel chocks.
> --
> Jim in NC

The Yak 52 has no parking brake, other than a latch on the stick handle
for keeping the brake handle compressed. My biggest concern with the
brakes is on startup. The starting, flaps, and brakes use the same
main pressure tank. There is a backup pressure tank for emergency.
Both tanks typically are set to hold about 50 - 60 bar or around 800
psi with an adjustable pop off valve. As the aircraft is started the
air pressure available for braking slowly decreases as the engine
continues cranking. Air pressure is replaced only after the engine has
started via a low volume high pressure gear driven compressor that runs
off the engine. Not a problem if you are proficient at getting the
engine started in a timely manner, but if you have some problem getting
the engine to turn over (forgetting to turn the mag switch on in the
second cabin is a typical gotcha) you could possibly start the engine
with insufficient air pressure remaining to hold the aircraft. This
could have serious consequences. This is why I always start the plane
pointed at the least expensive thing on the ramp. If the plane fails
to start on the first try I chock the wheels before trying again. Of
course that then requires somebody to remove the chocks for me once the
engine kicks over. Kind of a hassle at times, but the last thing I
want is a 360 hp airplane leaping forward on the ramp on startup. That
may sound like a design limitation but these aircraft were intended to
be used at primary flight training facilities where there was always a
ground crew around to help out if needed.

Greg in AL

[flyncatfish]

Morgans wrote:
> "flyncatfish" > wrote
>
> > I have a russian Yak 52
> > and the starting, brake, and flap systems are all pneumatic. It's nice
> > not to have to worry about whether you battery will crank in the
> > morning.
>
> How does the air make the brakes work? Please don't say very well! <ba-doomp>
>
> More specifically, do they have a spring that puts the brake on, with the air
> pressure pushing the brakes off, or more like a truck brake, with one air source
> pushing the brakes off, and another pushing the brakes back on?

That's a good question. I think it's more like a truck brake. The
plane uses differential braking of the main wheels to turn/brake. The
plane has a castoring nose wheel. Braking is actuated by depressing a
brake handle on the stick. Air pressure is directed to the brakes via
the rudder pedals. You push the rudder pedal on the side you want to
turn toward and then start depressing the brake handle on the stick in
short 1 second intervals. You can hear the air going to the brakes
like an air brake on a truck. To release the brake you just release the
handle on the stick. I'm not sure but I think there are springs that
pull the brake shoes away from inside the brake drum when the air
pressure is released. You got me thinking and I'll see if I can confirm
that because that's something I should know.
>
> I had always thought aircraft parking brakes were kinda' dumb. It would make
> sense to have a system like cars, with a cable putting the parking brake on,
> plus the advantage of having an emergency brake, but there goes the weight issue
> again, I guess. No wonder that airplanes have to use wheel chocks.
> --
> Jim in NC

The Yak 52 has no parking brake, other than a latch on the stick handle
for keeping the brake handle compressed. My biggest concern with the
brakes is on startup. The starting, flaps, and brakes use the same
main pressure tank. There is a backup pressure tank for emergency.
Both tanks typically are set to hold about 50 - 60 bar or around 800
psi with an adjustable pop off valve. As the aircraft is started the
air pressure available for braking slowly decreases as the engine
continues cranking. Air pressure is replaced only after the engine has
started via a low volume high pressure gear driven compressor that runs
off the engine. Not a problem if you are proficient at getting the
engine started in a timely manner, but if you have some problem getting
the engine to turn over (forgetting to turn the mag switch on in the
second cabin is a typical gotcha) you could possibly start the engine
with insufficient air pressure remaining to hold the aircraft. This
could have serious consequences. This is why I always start the plane
pointed at the least expensive thing on the ramp. If the plane fails
to start on the first try I chock the wheels before trying again. Of
course that then requires somebody to remove the chocks for me once the
engine kicks over. Kind of a hassle at times, but the last thing I
want is a 360 hp airplane leaping forward on the ramp on startup. That
may sound like a design limitation but these aircraft were intended to
be used at primary flight training facilities where there was always a
ground crew around to help out if needed.

Greg in AL

[Morgans[_2_]]

"flyncatfish" > wrote
>
> That's a good question. I think it's more like a truck brake.

Snippage

> The Yak 52 has no parking brake, other than a latch on the stick handle
> for keeping the brake handle compressed.

So if I understand correctly, you say if there is no air pressure there are no
brakes?

If that is the case, it is not like truck brakes.

Truck brakes have a very heavy spring that keeps the brakes applied on full
force, if there is no air. You can see why, so that if an air line or tank
ruptures going down the road, you just stop. Right now! I did it once from a
slow speed to see how good they grab. Very good is the answer! <g> You would
have major flat spots if you did it from any great speed!

How they work is by applying air to the back side of the air cylinder that
operates the brake. That pulls the shoes away from the drum, against the
"applying" action of the spring. When you want to stop, air is let into the
side of the cylinder on the opposite side of the piston as the first supply I
mentioned, and it pushes the shoe towards the drum, and at the same time, pushes
some of that first air back into the air tank. Really, what you are doing is
letting the spring apply the brake, by reducing the pressure differential from
one side of the piston to the other.

It sounds like you are worried if the air pressure drops too low from starting,
and that would not be a problem with truck brakes. Also, holding the brake
lever down for parking makes it sound like there is no applying spring, and air
on one side of the piston, only.
--
Jim in NC

[Bushy Pete]

Top-posted 'cause I'm lazy!

For a truck you want the brakes to apply if the air system fails.

For a plane, you want the brakes not applied if the air system fails.

In the truck you want the brakes to apply full on if the brakes system air
supply fails, it means you have to start the truck and wait for air pressure
to build before moving the truck, but it makes or safe driving when the
brake air fails on a big hill.

If the brakes were to be applied at full strength by a spring while you were
flying, then when you touch down, you will wind up on your nose or your
back, and you will have to call the insurance company.....

By having brakes that remain off if the air system fails, you can simply
land on a longer runway which allows for the non-functional brakes. Yet
another reason for having that emergency fuel in the tank, so you can divert
when the warning light comes on. Or you can have a lower speed taxi
accident, that as a pilot you should at least be able to kill the switches
before hitting the expensive whatever. Battle of Britain pilots were warned
that when a crash was going to happen, they were to crash into the softest,
least expensive thing.....

Although these air brakes don't make for a good long term parking brake,
chocks will hold a plane in one place, and even if air has leaked from the
tank, if the motor can be started and run until air is built up, the motor
can then be stopped and restarted later to supply enough air for the short
duration required if you alone have to remove the chocks while fuelling at
the bowser.

Hope this helps,
Pete


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "flyncatfish" > wrote
>>
>> That's a good question. I think it's more like a truck brake.
>
> Snippage
>
>> The Yak 52 has no parking brake, other than a latch on the stick handle
>> for keeping the brake handle compressed.
>
> So if I understand correctly, you say if there is no air pressure there
> are no brakes?
>
> If that is the case, it is not like truck brakes.
>
> Truck brakes have a very heavy spring that keeps the brakes applied on
> full force, if there is no air. You can see why, so that if an air line
> or tank ruptures going down the road, you just stop. Right now! I did it
> once from a slow speed to see how good they grab. Very good is the
> answer! <g> You would have major flat spots if you did it from any great
> speed!
>
> How they work is by applying air to the back side of the air cylinder that
> operates the brake. That pulls the shoes away from the drum, against the
> "applying" action of the spring. When you want to stop, air is let into
> the side of the cylinder on the opposite side of the piston as the first
> supply I mentioned, and it pushes the shoe towards the drum, and at the
> same time, pushes some of that first air back into the air tank. Really,
> what you are doing is letting the spring apply the brake, by reducing the
> pressure differential from one side of the piston to the other.
>
> It sounds like you are worried if the air pressure drops too low from
> starting, and that would not be a problem with truck brakes. Also,
> holding the brake lever down for parking makes it sound like there is no
> applying spring, and air on one side of the piston, only.
> --
> Jim in NC

[flyncatfish]

Morgans wrote:
> "flyncatfish" > wrote
> >
> > That's a good question. I think it's more like a truck brake.
>
> Snippage
>
> > The Yak 52 has no parking brake, other than a latch on the stick handle
> > for keeping the brake handle compressed.
>
> So if I understand correctly, you say if there is no air pressure there are no
> brakes?
>
> If that is the case, it is not like truck brakes.
>
> Truck brakes have a very heavy spring that keeps the brakes applied on full
> force, if there is no air. You can see why, so that if an air line or tank
> ruptures going down the road, you just stop. Right now! I did it once from a
> slow speed to see how good they grab. Very good is the answer! <g> You would
> have major flat spots if you did it from any great speed!
>
>snip

Definately not like truck brakes than. Like BushyPete said having the
brakes engage if I lost air pressure would be a disaster. Probably
ground loop the plane or worse.

Greg in AL

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
> 50"W long.,
>
> to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
> to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
> to 39° 00' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
> to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 01' 29"W long.,
> to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 16' 06"W long.,
> to 39° 06' 00"N lat., 86° 15' 00"W long.,
> to the point of beginning.

All well and good, but rather awkward to review in the air (or even on
the ground).

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