Questions on VFR sectionals and TACs

[Mxsmanic]

There are some mysteries that I've encountered while learning to read
VFR charts:

1. I see airports with dashed cyan circles around them that I presume
indicate Class D airspace (based on the chart legend). However, the
circles are not always the same size, and I don't see any indication
of their radii; how do I determine how far out the Class D circle
extends (short of measuring it by hand)? Also, is there a convention
for the center of the Class D circle (tower, or whatever?)? They
don't seem to be centered on anything easily identifiable.

2. The legend doesn't appear to explain lines that consist of a solid
cyan line with cyan dots inside. It seems to outline things like
wildlife refuges or parks and stuff like that. Is this just an extra
line style used for things that don't otherwise have line styles
assigned, or what? Are there any restrictions or other things to know
about spaces enclosed by these lines, or are they for information
only?

3. I'm confused about Class E airspace. If I understand correctly,
the absence of any other indication on the chart means that Class E
starts at 1200' AGL, and extends to 18,000' MSL. If the shaded purple
border encloses an area, it's Class E starting at 700' AGL and still
extending to 18,000' MSL. If it's a shaded cyan border, it means ...
Class E starts at 1200' AGL and extends to 18,000' MSL?? (The chart
says "abuts Class G," but I'm not sure what they mean.)

4. The cyan chain-link Class E border confuses me. Which side is
inside the Class E? The altitude is the floor of the Class E and it
still extends to 18,000' MSL, right? If there are different altitudes
on each side of the chain link, what does that mean, and where do I
look for the other border of the airspace? For example, just west of
Buckeye on the Phoenix sectional, there are chain links and stuff all
over the place, and I'm having trouble figuring out what the floors
are and where. Around Western Sky airport (W 113° 40' N 33° 46'
roughly), I see the shaded cyan border for Class E at 1200' AGL, but
in that area I see 7000 MSL, and a chain link on the right and bottom.
There are chain links next to airways, too. I don't know which
altitude applies where.

Can anyone explain the above to me?

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

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> There are some mysteries that I've encountered while learning to read
> VFR charts:
>
> 1. I see airports with dashed cyan circles around them that I presume
> indicate Class D airspace (based on the chart legend). However, the
> circles are not always the same size, and I don't see any indication
> of their radii; how do I determine how far out the Class D circle
> extends (short of measuring it by hand)? Also, is there a convention
> for the center of the Class D circle (tower, or whatever?)? They
> don't seem to be centered on anything easily identifiable.

Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area. Class D surface is dashed
blue. The configuration of the airspace depends on the instrument
approaches at that airport. If you need to know the radius, you can
measure it by hand, but I don't see how that information is useful for
VFR navigation. You just need to know the boundaries of the airspace,
not the radius from an aribtrary center location.


>
> 2. The legend doesn't appear to explain lines that consist of a solid
> cyan line with cyan dots inside. It seems to outline things like
> wildlife refuges or parks and stuff like that. Is this just an extra
> line style used for things that don't otherwise have line styles
> assigned, or what? Are there any restrictions or other things to know
> about spaces enclosed by these lines, or are they for information
> only?

Yes that is the boundaries of wildlife refuges and national parks. You
need to stay 2000ft above the terrain. This information can be found on
the inside flap of the chart, not in the standard legend box.


>
> 3. I'm confused about Class E airspace. If I understand correctly,
> the absence of any other indication on the chart means that Class E
> starts at 1200' AGL, and extends to 18,000' MSL. If the shaded purple
> border encloses an area, it's Class E starting at 700' AGL and still
> extending to 18,000' MSL. If it's a shaded cyan border, it means ...
> Class E starts at 1200' AGL and extends to 18,000' MSL?? (The chart
> says "abuts Class G," but I'm not sure what they mean.)


This is a very typical confusion. Class E begins at 700' inside the
shaded magenta borders. It begins at 1200' inside the shaded blue
borders. It begins at 14500' outside the shaded blue borders. Now, you
may not see any shaded blue borders on your chart because you may be
completely surrounded by it. So there is no way to know whether you are
inside or outside these borders, but since the majority of the U.S. is
surrounded by these blue borders it is safe to assume that you are
inside. If you go to parts of western U.S. or coastal areas you will
see the blue borders. The top of the class E is 18000' where class A
begins.


>
> 4. The cyan chain-link Class E border confuses me. Which side is
> inside the Class E? The altitude is the floor of the Class E and it
> still extends to 18,000' MSL, right? If there are different altitudes
> on each side of the chain link, what does that mean, and where do I
> look for the other border of the airspace? For example, just west of
> Buckeye on the Phoenix sectional, there are chain links and stuff all
> over the place, and I'm having trouble figuring out what the floors
> are and where. Around Western Sky airport (W 113° 40' N 33° 46'
> roughly), I see the shaded cyan border for Class E at 1200' AGL, but
> in that area I see 7000 MSL, and a chain link on the right and bottom.
> There are chain links next to airways, too. I don't know which
> altitude applies where.
>

In some areas it may not be useful to define class E as beginning at
1200' or 700' AGL because the terrain may be uneven, or there may be a
need to define class E as beginning at something other than 1200 or
700. This is where the blue chainlink is used. It is hard to tell
whether you are inside of ourside the line, but it should become
apparent once you identify the boundaries.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area. Class D surface is
> dashed blue.
>

Dashed cyan is a Class D surface area, a Class E surface area is dashed
magenta.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> There are some mysteries that I've encountered while learning to read
> VFR charts:
>
> 1. I see airports with dashed cyan circles around them that I presume
> indicate Class D airspace (based on the chart legend). However, the
> circles are not always the same size, and I don't see any indication
> of their radii; how do I determine how far out the Class D circle
> extends (short of measuring it by hand)? Also, is there a convention
> for the center of the Class D circle (tower, or whatever?)? They
> don't seem to be centered on anything easily identifiable.

The nominal diameter is 4.3 NM (5 SM). There
may be extensions either as class D or class E surface area that
accomodate the instrumetn approaches. They're centered on the
airport reference point.

>
> 2. The legend doesn't appear to explain lines that consist of a solid
> cyan line with cyan dots inside. It seems to outline things like
> wildlife refuges or parks and stuff like that. Is this just an extra
> line style used for things that don't otherwise have line styles
> assigned, or what? Are there any restrictions or other things to know
> about spaces enclosed by these lines, or are they for information
> only?
>

Symbols are explained more in the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide.
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide

The blue line with the dots indicates a conservation area (wilelife
refuge, national park ,etc.).

Pilots are requested to stay 2000' above these (but it's not
mandatory).

> 3. I'm confused about Class E airspace. If I understand correctly,
> the absence of any other indication on the chart means that Class E
> starts at 1200' AGL, and extends to 18,000' MSL. If the shaded purple
> border encloses an area, it's Class E starting at 700' AGL and still
> extending to 18,000' MSL. If it's a shaded cyan border, it means ...
> Class E starts at 1200' AGL and extends to 18,000' MSL?? (The chart
> says "abuts Class G," but I'm not sure what they mean.)

Originally there was a lot less controlled airspace than there is
now. If you're out in parts of the country which is much more
desolate you'll fine the 1200' floors under airway, and the 700'
floors around airports that have instrument approaches that don't
have class E to the ground (transition areas). In most places
now, the 1200 stuff pretty much just overlaps everything and there
are magenta vignettes to take it down to 700'.

Originally, the magenta vignette was abutted with a blue vignette
showing the step up to 1200. Now they don't show the blue vignette
when it's bumping up against 700' or surface area boundaries, only
when it bumps up against uncontrolled airspace.


>
> 4. The cyan chain-link Class E border confuses me. Which side is
> inside the Class E? The altitude is the floor of the Class E and it
> still extends to 18,000' MSL, right? If there are different altitudes
> on each side of the chain link, what does that mean, and where do I
> look for the other border of the airspace? For example, just west of
> Buckeye on the Phoenix sectional, there are chain links and stuff all
> over the place, and I'm having trouble figuring out what the floors
> are and where. Around Western Sky airport (W 113° 40' N 33° 46'
> roughly), I see the shaded cyan border for Class E at 1200' AGL, but
> in that area I see 7000 MSL, and a chain link on the right and bottom.
> There are chain links next to airways, too. I don't know which
> altitude applies where.

The zig/zag class E borders are used only in bizarre mountainous
area. The side with the text is the non-standard controlled
airspace floor.

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area. Class D surface is dashed
> blue.

Cyan is blue-green. The other color is magenta (red-blue).

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area. Class D surface is dashed
> blue.

The legend on the chart I'm looking at says the opposite. Magenta
dashed lines are marked as Class E; cyan dashed lines are marked as
Class D.

> The configuration of the airspace depends on the instrument
> approaches at that airport. If you need to know the radius, you can
> measure it by hand, but I don't see how that information is useful for
> VFR navigation. You just need to know the boundaries of the airspace,
> not the radius from an aribtrary center location.

It's just hard to figure out whether I'm inside or outside the
boundaries without a radius and center point. IIRC, I need to contact
the tower before entering the Class D space (?).

> Yes that is the boundaries of wildlife refuges and national parks. You
> need to stay 2000ft above the terrain. This information can be found on
> the inside flap of the chart, not in the standard legend box.

OK, I found it in the fine print (I'm looking at SkyVector).

> This is a very typical confusion. Class E begins at 700' inside the
> shaded magenta borders. It begins at 1200' inside the shaded blue
> borders. It begins at 14500' outside the shaded blue borders. Now, you
> may not see any shaded blue borders on your chart because you may be
> completely surrounded by it. So there is no way to know whether you are
> inside or outside these borders, but since the majority of the U.S. is
> surrounded by these blue borders it is safe to assume that you are
> inside. If you go to parts of western U.S. or coastal areas you will
> see the blue borders. The top of the class E is 18000' where class A
> begins.

OK, thanks, that clarifies things.

> In some areas it may not be useful to define class E as beginning at
> 1200' or 700' AGL because the terrain may be uneven, or there may be a
> need to define class E as beginning at something other than 1200 or
> 700. This is where the blue chainlink is used. It is hard to tell
> whether you are inside of ourside the line, but it should become
> apparent once you identify the boundaries.

OK. I confess that I don't see the logic behind so many changes in
Class E altitudes; some people at the FAA must have a lot of time on
their hands.

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

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
>
> > Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area. Class D surface is dashed
> > blue.
>
> The legend on the chart I'm looking at says the opposite. Magenta
> dashed lines are marked as Class E; cyan dashed lines are marked as
> Class D.
>

Blue is class D and purple of class E. I was thinking of purple when
you said cyan. I guess I have to go back and relearn my colors.

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Mxsmanic > writes:
> > In some areas it may not be useful to define class E as beginning at
> > 1200' or 700' AGL because the terrain may be uneven, or there may be a
> > need to define class E as beginning at something other than 1200 or
> > 700. This is where the blue chainlink is used. It is hard to tell
> > whether you are inside of ourside the line, but it should become
> > apparent once you identify the boundaries.
>
> OK. I confess that I don't see the logic behind so many changes in
> Class E altitudes; some people at the FAA must have a lot of time on
> their hands.

I've assumed that the reason for doing this is to identify areas in
which you can expect to find IFR planes. I would guess that you don't
want to have IFR planes going through areas too low or far away from
antennas to have radio communications with ATC. (Could someone
correct me if my guess is wrong?)

Chris

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Ron Natalie > writes:
> Symbols are explained more in the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide.
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide
>
> The blue line with the dots indicates a conservation area (wilelife
> refuge, national park ,etc.).
>
> Pilots are requested to stay 2000' above these (but it's not
> mandatory).

North of Boston you will find a large white-ground circle outlined by
a thick cyan dashed line.

The meaning of white ground or a thick cyan dashed line is not defined
in the chart legend, nor is it defined in the book you point at. Any
guess what this is? (And why the FAA thinks it is worth putting on
the chart, but not worth documenting what it means?)

Chris

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote:

> North of Boston you will find a large white-ground circle outlined by
> a thick cyan dashed line.

Not anymore (look at the 74th edition of the NY sectional)


> The meaning of white ground or a thick cyan dashed line is not defined
> in the chart legend, nor is it defined in the book you point at. Any
> guess what this is? (And why the FAA thinks it is worth putting on
> the chart, but not worth documenting what it means?)

On the 73rd edition of the NY sectional there is indeed a note
that P-67 is expanded by special notam.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The nominal diameter is 4.3 NM (5 SM). There
> may be extensions either as class D or class E surface area that
> accomodate the instrumetn approaches. They're centered on the
> airport reference point.
>

There is no nominal diameter for Class D or E surface areas. The standard
is 3.5 NM plus the distance from the Airport Reference Point to the end of
the outermost runway.

[Mxsmanic]

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> North of Boston you will find a large white-ground circle outlined by
> a thick cyan dashed line.

Looks like the one around Washington. I think it means that one of
the President's friends lives somewhere near there, so all aircraft
for dozens of miles around are prohibited so as not to disturb the
royals.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> I've assumed that the reason for doing this is to identify areas in
> which you can expect to find IFR planes. I would guess that you don't
> want to have IFR planes going through areas too low or far away from
> antennas to have radio communications with ATC. (Could someone
> correct me if my guess is wrong?)

Isn't IFR allowed in both Class E and Class G?

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Dashed cyan is actually class E surface area.

Not cyan. Rather, class E is depicted by that horrible purply color the
FAA erroniously calls "magenta". What they print on the chart is not
magenta by any stretch of the imagination. Magenta is beautiful; you
can see magenta in the deluxe Crayola crayon box. The FAA color should
be called "FAA feh".

Cyan is more like a deep blue. Real cyan is also beautiful.

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.

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Bob Noel > writes:

> In article >,
> Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote:
>
> > North of Boston you will find a large white-ground circle outlined by
> > a thick cyan dashed line.
>
> Not anymore (look at the 74th edition of the NY sectional)

Heh. Don't have that one yet. :-)

> > The meaning of white ground or a thick cyan dashed line is not defined
> > in the chart legend, nor is it defined in the book you point at. Any
> > guess what this is? (And why the FAA thinks it is worth putting on
> > the chart, but not worth documenting what it means?)
>
> On the 73rd edition of the NY sectional there is indeed a note
> that P-67 is expanded by special notam.

I found the note, but only figured out what it was associated with
_after_ someone explained the dashed circle to me. I guess I find it
puzzling that there are symbols used on the map which don't appear in
any legend... (Especially when just adding them to the legend with a
description like "heavy cyan dashed line == TFR outline" would clear
everything up.)

Chris

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It's just hard to figure out whether I'm inside or outside the
> boundaries without a radius and center point.
>

You're going at this the wrong way. In flight, what you do is simply
look at the chart, find some ground features close to the border line
of the airspace, look out the window, find the same ground features -
and presto, you know where you are in relation to the airspace. For IFR
flight, airspace doesn't matter much, since the controller will do
everything necessary for you.

Also, many circular airspaces are centered around a VOR-DME, so there's
another help. Figuring the radius (which is normally standardized for
certain types of airspace) is pretty easy, since the scale of a
sectional is the same every time and you have a ruler.

The logic for class E lower limits is in IFR traffic being in it. Class
E means higher visibility requirements for VFR, so they can separate
themselves from IFR traffic. You may recall the thread in which we
tried VERY HARD to make you understand that concept. If you still
haven't grasped it, it's no surprise you don't understand the logic of
Class E lower limits. What comes round...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Isn't IFR allowed in both Class E and Class G?
>

Yes, but along an airway or and approach, IFR traffic is much more
likely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote:

> > > North of Boston you will find a large white-ground circle outlined by
> > > a thick cyan dashed line.
> >
> > Not anymore (look at the 74th edition of the NY sectional)
>
> Heh. Don't have that one yet. :-)

I literally got it from the club a few hours earlier as he unpacked
the boxes. :-)

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

[Ron Natalie]

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

>
> The meaning of white ground or a thick cyan dashed line is not defined
> in the chart legend, nor is it defined in the book you point at. Any
> guess what this is? (And why the FAA thinks it is worth putting on
> the chart, but not worth documenting what it means?)
>
Correct. NACO finally adopted that to mean special flight restricted
airspace. The other big use fo it is the FRZ in Washington and P-40
(Camp David) in DC.

Are we talking about the one over Bush the First's place in
Kennebunkport?

[Ron Natalie]

>
> I've assumed that the reason for doing this is to identify areas in
> which you can expect to find IFR planes. I would guess that you don't
> want to have IFR planes going through areas too low or far away from
> antennas to have radio communications with ATC. (Could someone
> correct me if my guess is wrong?)
>
Not where you can expect to find IFR planes, but where you can
expect NOT to find VFR planes if the weather is below minimums.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You're going at this the wrong way. In flight, what you do is simply
> look at the chart, find some ground features close to the border line
> of the airspace, look out the window, find the same ground features -
> and presto, you know where you are in relation to the airspace.

But that's just it: There are few ground features shown on the chart.
In some cases, a charted feature is near the border of the airspace,
but in many cases there is nothing along the border. Even with
landmarks, the best you can do is estimate.

I suppose one can argue that the differences among certain types of
airspace aren't that great, and a ballpark estimate will do. But if
they aren't that important, why bother to chart them?

It's all a strong argument for moving-map GPS systems, but one
shouldn't have to depend on those.

> For IFR flight, airspace doesn't matter much, since the controller
> will do everything necessary for you.

Yes, but this is a chart intended for VFR.

> Also, many circular airspaces are centered around a VOR-DME, so there's
> another help.

That does seem to be the case fairly often for Class B airspace, and
as long as it's a moderately regular layer cake, you can find out
where you are. I notice that some boundaries are clearly marked as
being on a particular radial or at a particular distance. Others are
marked as coincident with a feature such as a road, although how one
is supposed to recognize one road among others is not explained (in
the Phoenix TAC that I'm looking at, the entire area is crisscrossed
with a grid of streets; I'm not sure how I'd distinguish Camelback
Road from the other nearly identical streets to the north and south of
it.

> Figuring the radius (which is normally standardized for
> certain types of airspace) is pretty easy, since the scale of a
> sectional is the same every time and you have a ruler.

If I can take my hands off the controls and turn to my chart to
measure it, that is.

> The logic for class E lower limits is in IFR traffic being in it. Class
> E means higher visibility requirements for VFR, so they can separate
> themselves from IFR traffic.

I guess that makes sense--although it seems that essentially
everything is Class E, anyway. It sounds like this was not always so.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> Not cyan. Rather, class E is depicted by that horrible purply color the
> FAA erroniously calls "magenta". What they print on the chart is not
> magenta by any stretch of the imagination. Magenta is beautiful; you
> can see magenta in the deluxe Crayola crayon box. The FAA color should
> be called "FAA feh".
>
> Cyan is more like a deep blue. Real cyan is also beautiful.

Cyan is an equal blend of green and blue. It is used in process
printing as one of the four base colors. Magenta is another one of
those colors, and it is an equal blend of red and blue. The other two
colors are yellow and black. By blending these colors in various
proportions, you can produce virtually any color of the rainbow on
paper.

I'm not sure why the FAA chose these colors, but one possible reason
is that they blend easily when they overlay other colors, which
probably makes it easier to produce semitransparent borders with them.
You can get away with simply overprinting cyan and magenta halftones;
doing the same with primaries like red or blue (which are already
screened blends) might just get you a muddy black.

With modern electronic illustration and mapmaking this could probably
be changed, but it looks like aviation charts are still being drawn
and modified by hand--they lack the crisp look of something original
prepared on a computer. It must be hugely labor-intensive.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> I literally got it from the club a few hours earlier as he unpacked
> the boxes. :-)

So is the actual purpose of that big area explained, or does it just
say that it's a (mysterious) restriction?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Are we talking about the one over Bush the First's place in
> Kennebunkport?

Why does he get a flight restriction? He's not a public official (as
far as I know).

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> But that's just it: There are few ground features shown on the chart.
> In some cases, a charted feature is near the border of the airspace,
> but in many cases there is nothing along the border. Even with
> landmarks, the best you can do is estimate.
>

You know yourself how many times you've been told this here, but in a
real plane, this is a non-issue - as you would find out from one hour in
the air. Orientation by ground features is a very basic piloting skill
which is acquired during basic instruction. It works very well most of
the time for most pilots - and should you get lost, there are strategies
to find your position again. But, GPS moving maps have made it easier.
The consequence of using one is that you will pass a restricted airspace
much closer than you would using ground features because you will be
able to determine your location more precisely. If, OTOH, you're in
doubt, you'll just give the restricted airspace a wider berth.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>OK. I confess that I don't see the logic behind so many changes in
>Class E altitudes; some people at the FAA must have a lot of time on
>their hands.
>


Most student pilots - those with a constructive attitude - try to learn
and understand before challenging and criticizing. There is certainly much
to criticize in the way aviation authorities do what they do, and there are
indeed a few things which simply appear to defy any rational approach to
comprehension. However, without having acquired even the most rudimentary
piloting skills or knowledge, one would be in a very poor position to
identify these issues, much less to make serious suggestions for
improvement.

Learning the nomenclature, color code and symbol legend of a VFR chart is
one of the most rudimentary piloting skills - whether you are flying a
sim or a training aircraft - if you haven't acquired this you are not
even ready to begin learning about flying. It's easy. An hour with any of
the excellent beginning aviation texts available and you will have most of
it. Another hour's review a week later and you'll only have to look at the
legend every once in a while to remember.

After this, anyone can have a question about class E surface areas, and
their relation to weather reporting, or those pesky "Presidential" areas
that show up on sectionals, but are never really explained - and people
here will galdly offer answers. But asking what a magenta circle is
indicates a real lack of interest in flying - this combined with
criticism for the way the FAA does things indicates a perverse attitude
toward flying.

GF

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Figuring the radius (which is normally standardized for
>> certain types of airspace) is pretty easy, since the scale of a
>> sectional is the same every time and you have a ruler.
>
>If I can take my hands off the controls and turn to my chart to
>measure it, that is.
>

Taking your hands off the controls is generally no big deal. Besides, if
you know you'll be flying near controlled airspace you take care of your
measuring and other planning before you get in the plane. Until you
fly a real plane you just can't appreciate how simple this is. Don't
make a mountain out of a mole hill.

--
Scott Post

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:00:20 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Are we talking about the one over Bush the First's place in
>> Kennebunkport?
>
>Why does he get a flight restriction? He's not a public official (as
>far as I know).

He doesn't. He gets a 1000'/1NM prohibited area. It's when the other
one comes to visit that the standard TFR appears, which (at least in
the ones I have) is charted by the absence of ground color. I see
someone else mentioned that the new chart which takes effect Thursday
doesn't have this feature any more. Course, the TFR can still appear.

[[email protected]]

Others are
> marked as coincident with a feature such as a road, although how one
> is supposed to recognize one road among others is not explained (in
> the Phoenix TAC that I'm looking at, the entire area is crisscrossed
> with a grid of streets; I'm not sure how I'd distinguish Camelback
> Road from the other nearly identical streets to the north and south of
> it.
>
Being a pilot in the Phoenix area I can at least help you out with that
one.
Camelback road can easily be identified by it's proximity to Camelback
mountain,
(from where it gets it's name) , and the mountain is easily identified
by it's shape
(take a wild guess as to what that is !). The other streets to the
north and south
are less easily identified, unless you are familiar with the area,
however they
can be identified by the locations of the high rise buildings. Most of
these are
clustered around central avenue, the uptown ones begin near Thomas,
the downtown
ones are noticeably seperated to the south. One comment I have to make
here is
it seems you ask these questions from a belief that pilots just take
off and go buzzing
around with no prior thought or preflight planning. I can assure you
that in the cases
of myself and the pilots I know, this is not the case. I am a
helicopter pilot so making
in flight measurements with a ruler/plotter is pretty much
impossible(rule of thumb works
for unexpected situations) but the point I am trying to make here is
that most pilots
don't just take off without already knowing where they are going and
how they are going to
get there. We can't plan for all the eventualities (oh look at that!
and a sightseeing detour
happens), but we must know where we are to know if said detour will be
feasible or not.
Most maps if you look closely enough will have a pretty clearly defined
vfr waypoint on them,
that you can use to identify your location on the map, (in Phoenix look
for the Beeline
Y or ASU or train tracks along Grand avenue or Boswell hospital on the
west side.


In short I guess what I'm trying to say is if you are unfamiliar with
an area, it simply
means that your preflight planning will, by necessity be more thorough.


Wayne
CPI-RTC

[[email protected]]

Others are
> marked as coincident with a feature such as a road, although how one
> is supposed to recognize one road among others is not explained (in
> the Phoenix TAC that I'm looking at, the entire area is crisscrossed
> with a grid of streets; I'm not sure how I'd distinguish Camelback
> Road from the other nearly identical streets to the north and south of
> it.
>
Being a pilot in the Phoenix area I can at least help you out with that
one.
Camelback road can easily be identified by it's proximity to Camelback
mountain,
(from where it gets it's name) , and the mountain is easily identified
by it's shape
(take a wild guess as to what that is !). The other streets to the
north and south
are less easily identified, unless you are familiar with the area,
however they
can be identified by the locations of the high rise buildings. Most of
these are
clustered around central avenue, the uptown ones begin near Thomas,
the downtown
ones are noticeably seperated to the south. One comment I have to make
here is
it seems you ask these questions from a belief that pilots just take
off and go buzzing
around with no prior thought or preflight planning. I can assure you
that in the cases
of myself and the pilots I know, this is not the case. I am a
helicopter pilot so making
in flight measurements with a ruler/plotter is pretty much
impossible(rule of thumb works
for unexpected situations) but the point I am trying to make here is
that most pilots
don't just take off without already knowing where they are going and
how they are going to
get there. We can't plan for all the eventualities (oh look at that!
and a sightseeing detour
happens), but we must know where we are to know if said detour will be
feasible or not.
Most maps if you look closely enough will have a pretty clearly defined
vfr waypoint on them,
that you can use to identify your location on the map, (in Phoenix look
for the Beeline
Y or ASU or train tracks along Grand avenue or Boswell hospital on the
west side.


In short I guess what I'm trying to say is if you are unfamiliar with
an area, it simply
means that your preflight planning will, by necessity be more thorough.


Wayne
CPI-RTC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Being a pilot in the Phoenix area I can at least help you out with that
> one. Camelback road can easily be identified by it's proximity to Camelback
> mountain, (from where it gets it's name) , and the mountain is easily identified
> by it's shape (take a wild guess as to what that is !).

It would be easy enough to find by the mountain, but the street goes
on and on--and all streets in Phoenix and the burbs (almost) are in a
grid. I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air, but it
seems like they'd all tend to look alike after a while. Grand Avenue
I'm sure I could spot. The freeways I could spot. Other major
streets might be difficult unless I could recognize things along the
way. And I'd only recognize things because I know the area; if I were
coming in as a stranger, that wouldn't help. I don't know the layout
of Los Angeles very well, for example, and finding Wilshire Boulevard
from the air seems like it would be difficult.

> The other streets to the north and south are less easily identified,
> unless you are familiar with the area, however they can be identified
> by the locations of the high rise buildings. Most of these are
> clustered around central avenue, the uptown ones begin near Thomas,
> the downtown ones are noticeably seperated to the south.

But if you're not from the area, and they aren't identified with
pictures or something on a chart, how would you recognize them? How
would you know where they are clustered? The TAC for KPHX just makes
some generic mention of buildings at various points.

> One comment I have to make here is it seems you ask these questions
> from a belief that pilots just take off and go buzzing around with
> no prior thought or preflight planning.

Some may, some may not. I try to plan carefully in advance but things
seem to get ahead of me when I'm actually flying and I lose track of
where I am or overshoot my waypoints while I search around for a
landmark.

> Most maps if you look closely enough will have a pretty clearly defined
> vfr waypoint on them, that you can use to identify your location on
> the map, (in Phoenix look for the Beeline Y or ASU or train tracks
> along Grand avenue or Boswell hospital on the west side.

It would be interesting to actually try Phoenix from the air. I know
the city very well on the ground, and I recognize things in satellite
photos, but I don't know how that would compare to seeing it from
altitude and obliquely.

My sim reproduces the general layout, but not with the level of detail
you'd see in real life. Still, with the landmarks that are there, I
can get around okay and I don't get lost--but if someone asked me "are
you in Class B airspace at this particular point," I might not know
without looking at the moving map, unless I were quite far from the
borders. And from what I read ATC gets really miffed if you stray
into Class B without a clearance.

> In short I guess what I'm trying to say is if you are unfamiliar with
> an area, it simply means that your preflight planning will, by necessity
> be more thorough.

I hope that would suffice. Maybe I'm just not good at recognizing
things on the fly. Or perhaps I will become less stressed about it
with practice.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Clark writes:

> He doesn't. He gets a 1000'/1NM prohibited area. It's when the other
> one comes to visit that the standard TFR appears, which (at least in
> the ones I have) is charted by the absence of ground color. I see
> someone else mentioned that the new chart which takes effect Thursday
> doesn't have this feature any more. Course, the TFR can still appear.

It's fortunate that cars and trucks cannot possibly carry bombs or
terrorists, and that the only threats come from above.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,



No ****, is that right? You don't fly?

[BT]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,
>
>
>
> No ****, is that right? You don't fly?

Newsp. Mr Mxs is a video flyer, simulation only... and he has been
questioning us for a month or more..
and then tends to spout off on topics that he thinks he knows better than a
rated pilot.

B

[Newps]

BT wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,
>>
>>
>>
>>No ****, is that right? You don't fly?
>
>
> Newsp. Mr Mxs is a video flyer, simulation only... and he has been
> questioning us for a month or more..
> and then tends to spout off on topics that he thinks he knows better than a
> rated pilot.



You should read up a little before you post this stuff.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,
>

Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have and SHUT
THE F... UP instead of telling them what they do everyday is
impossible?

Jeeze, I tried. Again. Note to self: Idiot!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...

Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
alone is dangerous. I attempt to extract a consensus and/or I look up
whatever they say to see if it is confirmed by multiple sources. If
someone proves to be regularly correct, I may develop more of a
tendency to believe him at his word, although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> although, like Ronald Reagan, I
> still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.
>

Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

Besides, what you describe is not what you do. What you do is to doubt
other people from your own experience - without having any.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

I don't know if Stalin said it, but Reagan certainly did, in his
farewell address on January 11, 1989:

"It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's
still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see."

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...
>
>
> Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
> alone is dangerous.

So why are you here? You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what
people write. That's the definition of insane.

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>although, like Ronald Reagan, I
>>still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.
>>
>
>
> Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

What? That's a quote of Reagen.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> > Stalin, actually, not Reagan.
>
> What? That's a quote of Reagen.
>

I was wrong, too. The quote is usually attributed to Lenin, although he
didn't use the exact words. It goes back to an old Russian proverb. And
good old Ronnie based his words on Lenin's. Funny, actually.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Newps > posted:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>>
>>> although, like Ronald Reagan, I
>>> still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stalin, actually, not Reagan.
>
> What? That's a quote of Reagen.
>
Reagan was quoting "an old Russian saying", so it just might be Stalin's,
though I don't know that first-hand.

Neil

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/20/06 12:30, Newps wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...
>>
>>
>> Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
>> alone is dangerous.
>
> So why are you here? You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what
> people write. That's the definition of insane.

He's here to troll. Answering him is... well ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> So why are you here?

It's a free resource, and some people do know what they are talking
about and are willing to share that knowledge.

> You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what people write.

I don't refuse to fly, but I haven't the resources to fly for real. I
don't believe what some people write, either because they are
verifiably incorrect, or because they have been so in the past, or
because their behavior is consistent with a tendency to disregard the
truth in favor of other considerations.

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

[Jim Stewart]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>>
>>> although, like Ronald Reagan, I
>>> still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stalin, actually, not Reagan.
>
>
> What? That's a quote of Reagen.

He was deliberately paraphrasing an old Russian
proverb.

[Highflyer]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel writes:
>
>> I literally got it from the club a few hours earlier as he unpacked
>> the boxes. :-)
>
> So is the actual purpose of that big area explained, or does it just
> say that it's a (mysterious) restriction?
>
>
It IS a "mysterious" restriction. It is a direct result of political
paranoia. We have many politicos who think that some guy out tooling around
in his Cessna 150 is going to decide to go out in a burst of glory and fly
his little Cessna into said politicos backside.

It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs, and
other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the world.
Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!

Our congress has cars and trucks blasing by the building all day and all
night of all sizes, none of which have passed through any kind of security
screening and any of which could be a massive bomb. The congress critturs
ignore all that.
Then some poor idiot in a Cessna 150 doesn't read the news or check the
charts or call flight service before takeoff and wanders around over
Washington, DC and they all panic and evacuate congress.

Think about that. These are the people who are running our country!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Mxsmanic]

Highflyer writes:

> Think about that. These are the people who are running our country!

Then they must be the people we elected. Think about that.

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

[Erik]

Highflyer wrote:
> It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs, and
> other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the world.
> Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!

There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
was violating restricted airspace.

The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?

I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
enough to make me nervous. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
City" bomb, though. I guess if you plotted it all out well, you could
manage more. Not that I've thought about the logistics much, I just
think it's moderately low on the risk scale.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Erik wrote:
> Highflyer wrote:
>> It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs,
>> and other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the
>> world. Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!
>
> There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
> what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
> was violating restricted airspace.
>
> The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
> fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?
>
> I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
> enough to make me nervous. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
> City" bomb, though. I guess if you plotted it all out well, you could
> manage more. Not that I've thought about the logistics much, I just
> think it's moderately low on the risk scale.

It is very low risk mainly because there are so many easier ways to get X
amount of explosives on target.

I would expect that there is much more chance that if a terrorist were to do
so the target of the attack would not be where the explosives went but GA
itself.

All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will do
stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at some of the
anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a matter of time till one
of them does something really stupid.

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
> what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
> was violating restricted airspace.
>
> The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
> fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?
>
> I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
> enough to make me nervous.

Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you load
into a Cessna?

See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place. So
whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you can
be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.

There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking off
in the first place.

However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets, along
with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will do
> stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at some of the
> anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a matter of time till one
> of them does something really stupid.

Like bulldozing an airport?

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will
>> do stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at
>> some of the anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a
>> matter of time till one of them does something really stupid.
>
> Like bulldozing an airport?

pretty much.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Erik writes:

> > There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
> > what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
> > was violating restricted airspace.
> >
> > The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
> > fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?
> >
> > I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
> > enough to make me nervous.

> Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you load
> into a Cessna?

> See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
> harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
> down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place. So
> whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you can
> be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.

> There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking off
> in the first place.

> However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
> already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets, along
> with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?

Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
to cause any significant damage.

Contrary to the breathless scenes in movies and on TV, blowing something
up in midair is a **** poor dispenser of such chemicals.

Take the Tokyo Sarin gas attack on the subway system; 5 coordinated
attacks in an enclosed area with tens ofthousands of people and they
only managed to kill 12, severly injure 50, and irritate about 1000.

A single drop of Sarin can kill an adult, but in spite of having
5 liters of the stuff, not a whole lot of damage was done.

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Highflyer writes:
>
>> Think about that. These are the people who are running our country!
>
> Then they must be the people we elected. Think about that.
>

Oh yeah, of coarse your are right. Politics are just as simple as flying a
sim.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will do
>> stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at some of
>> the
>> anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a matter of time till
>> one
>> of them does something really stupid.
>
> Like bulldozing an airport?
>

Take your meds.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Erik writes:
>
>> There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
>> what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
>> was violating restricted airspace.
>>
>> The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
>> fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?
>>
>> I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
>> enough to make me nervous.
>
> Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you
> load
> into a Cessna?
>
> See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
> harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
> down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place.
> So
> whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you
> can
> be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.
>
> There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking
> off
> in the first place.
>
> However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
> already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets,
> along
> with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?
>


Yeah, just last week Lowe's was giving away 50 lb. bags of anthrax when you
bought a new dusing attachment for any popular Cessan or Piper model.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
>
> They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.
>

Or a baseball bat

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.
> >

> Or a baseball bat

No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
bat in a Tokyo subway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.
>>>
>
>> Or a baseball bat
>
> No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
> bat in a Tokyo subway.
>


Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
larger body count.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder
> > <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.
> >>>
> >
> >> Or a baseball bat
> >
> > No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
> > bat in a Tokyo subway.
> >


> Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
> group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
> each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
> subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
> larger body count.

A knife could have caused more casualties.

There were 5 attackers in separate cars and 5 getaway drivers.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic is a troll writes:

> WE elected? I think WE is too big a number. Trolls living under
> bridges in France don't vote in US elections.

Trying to make witty jokes will not fix the problem.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Oh yeah, of coarse your are right. Politics are just as simple as flying a
> sim.

You get exactly what you vote for (or what you fail to vote for). No amount
of ill-considered, sophomoric wit will change that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
> of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
> to cause any significant damage.

The point is that dispersing it with your own explosive device or dispersing
it with the aid of a missile from an intercepting fighter jet both accomplish
the same objective.

And what if the aircraft were loaded with radioactive material. The risk
actually isn't any higher than it is with CBW agents, but since radioactivity
persists longer and is thus better at generating public hysteria, it could be
effective where CBW is not. And shooting down an aircraft would be great for
spreading it around. Nobody would die from the direct effects, but the
ensuing panic would do a great deal of damage.

In this case, the use of an airplane makes more sense, because it gets better
media coverage and awareness, and since the actual danger presented by the
scenario is very small, a terrorists would have to depend on media
sensationalism to accomplish the task. A car bomb wouldn't do that because it
just wouldn't get as much media attention, especially before the fact. People
might not even notice radioactivity unless they explicitly checked for it, and
it's highly unlikely that they'd be sickened or killed by it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
> group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
> each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
> subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
> larger body count.

A gun works even better, and those are plentiful in the USA.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a job,
and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Thanks for the learned opinion. I'll forward it to the NSA and FBI- I'm sure
they'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a job,
> and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.

It saddens me a bit that you are prepared to sacrifice your own democracy in
exchange for cheap shots at others. I suppose it's true that if the water is
brought to a boil slowly, the frog dies without realizing what's happening.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Thanks for the learned opinion. I'll forward it to the NSA and FBI- I'm sure
> they'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

They've already read it here. Just hope that the FAA isn't reading this
newsgroup as well.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
> > of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
> > to cause any significant damage.

> The point is that dispersing it with your own explosive device or dispersing
> it with the aid of a missile from an intercepting fighter jet both accomplish
> the same objective.

The point is it would be an ineffective delivery system and wouldn't
accomplish anything.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Actually, the one who deserves the most pity is yourself. Most of the people
on the NG are fortunate enough to have jobs, families, and occasionally the
chance to fly.
America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the world
where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own plane.

We also didn't need to leave our home country to try and survive or scratch
out a meager living, and we don't live in a socially isolated fantasy world.

Of course, you'll never realize this, which is why you're in your current
situation, with no way out.

[Sylvain]

Viperdoc wrote:

> We also didn't need to leave our home country to try and survive

ahem... some of us did :-)

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the world
> where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own plane.

That's not true.

You're ignoring the realities, and postponing the inevitable.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the world
> > where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own plane.

> That's not true.

Which isn't true?

That America may not be perfect or it is one of the few countries
where an average person can own and fly an airplane?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Oh yeah, of coarse your are right. Politics are just as simple as flying
>> a
>> sim.
>
> You get exactly what you vote for (or what you fail to vote for). No
> amount
> of ill-considered, sophomoric wit will change that.
>

Not if you find yourself in the minority, moron.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a job,
>> and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.
>
> It saddens me a bit that you are prepared to sacrifice your own democracy
> in
> exchange for cheap shots at others. I suppose it's true that if the water
> is
> brought to a boil slowly, the frog dies without realizing what's
> happening.

Na, we can take time to tell you what an ignorant dip **** you are and still
have time to vote.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the
>> world
>> where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own
>> plane.
>
> That's not true.
>
> You're ignoring the realities, and postponing the inevitable.

Sure it's true half whit. Just because it doesn't fit your perception of
reality doesn't mean it's not true.

In fact, I have a hard time understanding your perception of reality. I
guess I need to spend more time just sitting on my butt and blaming my short
comings on others. It might make your reality easier to understand, you
know, experience.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Thanks for the learned opinion. I'll forward it to the NSA and FBI- I'm
>> sure
>> they'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.
>
> They've already read it here. Just hope that the FAA isn't reading this
> newsgroup as well.
>


You don't by any chance drive a cab and have an overwhelming compulsion for
buying all available copies of Catcher in the Rye, do you?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That America may not be perfect or it is one of the few countries
> where an average person can own and fly an airplane?

The latter.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You don't by any chance drive a cab and have an overwhelming compulsion for
> buying all available copies of Catcher in the Rye, do you?

No.

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

[BDS]

"Maxwell" > wrote...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Viperdoc writes:
> >
> >> America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the
> >> world
> >> where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own
> >> plane.
> >
> > That's not true.
> >
> > You're ignoring the realities, and postponing the inevitable.
>
> Sure it's true half whit. Just because it doesn't fit your perception of
> reality doesn't mean it's not true.
>
> In fact, I have a hard time understanding your perception of reality.

What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.

BDS

[Ron Natalie]

Erik wrote:

> There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
> what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
> was violating restricted airspace.

1. It was a 150.
2. It never got anywhere near the building, it smacked into a tree
(and didn't do much damage to it) on the grounds.
3. He was violating the class B airspace and a prohibited area.

> I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
> enough to make me nervous. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
> City" bomb, though.

It wouldn't even get as good as loading up a jeep with over 1000 lbs
of stuff and four-wheeling it in close.

[Maxwell]

"BDS" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Maxwell" > wrote...
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Viperdoc writes:
>> >
>> >> America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the
>> >> world
>> >> where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own
>> >> plane.
>> >
>> > That's not true.
>> >
>> > You're ignoring the realities, and postponing the inevitable.
>>
>> Sure it's true half whit. Just because it doesn't fit your perception of
>> reality doesn't mean it's not true.
>>
>> In fact, I have a hard time understanding your perception of reality.
>
> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.
>

Oh yeah, that one. Well airplane are like houses, you just have to buy a 150
and keep trading up every 5 years or so.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That America may not be perfect or it is one of the few countries
> > where an average person can own and fly an airplane?

> The latter.

And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can own
and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?

In the Americas there is Canada and the US.

In Africa there is?

In Asia there is?

In Eastern Europe there is?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting BDS > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote...
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Viperdoc writes:
> > >
> > >> America may not be perfect, but it is one of the few countries in the
> > >> world
> > >> where an average, middle class individual can own and fly their own
> > >> plane.
> > >
> > > That's not true.
> > >
> > > You're ignoring the realities, and postponing the inevitable.
> >
> > Sure it's true half whit. Just because it doesn't fit your perception of
> > reality doesn't mean it's not true.
> >
> > In fact, I have a hard time understanding your perception of reality.

> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.

Probably, as it would be yet another true statement that is irrelevant
to the discussion.

He seems to be the master of that technique.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Apr 28, 2:25 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > That America may not be perfect or it is one of the few countries
> > > where an average person can own and fly an airplane?
> > The latter.
>
> And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can own
> and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?
>
> In the Americas there is Canada and the US.
>
> In Africa there is?
>
> In Asia there is?
>
> In Eastern Europe there is?

In Australasia there are private owners thank you for asking :-)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

george wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2:25 am, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>> writes:
>>>> That America may not be perfect or it is one of the few countries
>>>> where an average person can own and fly an airplane?
>>> The latter.
>>
>> And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can
>> own and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?
>>
>> In the Americas there is Canada and the US.
>>
>> In Africa there is?
>>
>> In Asia there is?
>>
>> In Eastern Europe there is?
>
> In Australasia there are private owners thank you for asking :-)

Where exactly is that?

[Blueskies]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
: Erik wrote:
:
: > There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
: > what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
: > was violating restricted airspace.
:
: 1. It was a 150.
: 2. It never got anywhere near the building, it smacked into a tree
: (and didn't do much damage to it) on the grounds.
: 3. He was violating the class B airspace and a prohibited area.
:
: > I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
: > enough to make me nervous. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
: > City" bomb, though.
:
: It wouldn't even get as good as loading up a jeep with over 1000 lbs
: of stuff and four-wheeling it in close.

I remember the pictures. The plane made it to the White House walls:

Startled uniformed Secret Service officers at the White House saw the descending plane at 1:49 a.m. and ducked for
cover. The plane crashed onto the South Lawn of the White House, skidded, slammed through the hedge and clipped the tree
before it hit a wall on the west side of the mansion.



http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can own
> and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?

I don't know of any countries in which this is possible. Aviation is
generally a rich man's hobby everywhere, where it is possible at all.

An exception might be a country in which aviation is a necessary form of
transportation for individuals due to geography, etc., but I don't know of a
country off-hand that qualifies, although some _regions_ may qualify (parts of
Alaska and Canada come immediately to mind, for example).

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

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.

No, I mean that the average person cannot own or fly anything.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can own
> > and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?

> I don't know of any countries in which this is possible. Aviation is
> generally a rich man's hobby everywhere, where it is possible at all.

Your definition of "rich" must be strange indeed.

Does it by chance mean someone with a real job?

I know, and have known, a lot of airplane owners.

Other than one guy who owned a string of furniture stores, I wouldn't
call any of them anywhere near "rich" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm an aircraft owner; think I'm "rich"?

I almost bought an airplane when I was a college student on the GI
bill and working part time (I still regret that I didn't).

Does a college student on the GI bill and working part time fit your
definition of "rich"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:

> > What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.

> No, I mean that the average person cannot own or fly anything.

Then you are an ignorant twit without a clue.

Either that or your definition of "average" is strange.

Show of hands; which would you concider average:

A. High school drop out flipping burgers.

B. High school graduate with an 8-5 job.

C. John Travolta.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.
>
> No, I mean that the average person cannot own or fly anything.
>

Yes, they can., fjukktard.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>
>> WE elected? I think WE is too big a number. Trolls living under
>> bridges in France don't vote in US elections.
>
> Trying to make witty jokes will not fix the problem.

Which problem? Your mental state?

I have a dremel tool. We could have a crack at it wiht that.

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>>
>>> WE elected? I think WE is too big a number. Trolls living under
>>> bridges in France don't vote in US elections.
>>
>> Trying to make witty jokes will not fix the problem.
>
> Which problem? Your mental state?
>
> I have a dremel tool. We could have a crack at it wiht that.
>


You will need carbide burrs, or extremely soft stones.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
>> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.
>
> No, I mean that the average person cannot own or fly anything.
>

Who knows, maybe someday you will grow up to be average and find out how
wrong you are. But I doubt it.

[Maxwell]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> : Erik wrote:
> :
> : > There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
> : > what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
> : > was violating restricted airspace.
> :
> : 1. It was a 150.
> : 2. It never got anywhere near the building, it smacked into a tree
> : (and didn't do much damage to it) on the grounds.
> : 3. He was violating the class B airspace and a prohibited area.
> :
> : > I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
> : > enough to make me nervous. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
> : > City" bomb, though.
> :
> : It wouldn't even get as good as loading up a jeep with over 1000 lbs
> : of stuff and four-wheeling it in close.
>
> I remember the pictures. The plane made it to the White House walls:
>
> Startled uniformed Secret Service officers at the White House saw the
> descending plane at 1:49 a.m. and ducked for
> cover. The plane crashed onto the South Lawn of the White House, skidded,
> slammed through the hedge and clipped the tree
> before it hit a wall on the west side of the mansion.
>
>
>
> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html
>

Did I read some where that there are two 50 caliber stations on the roof top
of the White House, maned 24-7?

[Blueskies]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message ...
>> BDS writes:
>>
>>> What he means is that the average person cannot own and fly a 747.
>>
>> No, I mean that the average person cannot own or fly anything.
>>
>
> Who knows, maybe someday you will grow up to be average and find out how wrong you are. But I doubt it.
>
>

You know, in this day and age, everyone is above average...

;-}

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:463371b4$0$4233
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic is a troll writes:
>>>
>>>> WE elected? I think WE is too big a number. Trolls living under
>>>> bridges in France don't vote in US elections.
>>>
>>> Trying to make witty jokes will not fix the problem.
>>
>> Which problem? Your mental state?
>>
>> I have a dremel tool. We could have a crack at it wiht that.
>>
>
>
> You will need carbide burrs, or extremely soft stones.

Or a bigger drill!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> How would you know? You lack any form of social skills, can't keep a
>> job, and demonstrate neither humor nor wit of any kind.
>
> It saddens me a bit that you are prepared to sacrifice your own
> democracy in exchange for cheap shots at others.

You're a moron.

Bertie

[Brian[_1_]]

On Apr 27, 5:05 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > And what is the percentage of countries where an average person can own
> > > and fly an airplane as indicated by your extensive research?
> > I don't know of any countries in which this is possible. Aviation is
> > generally a rich man's hobby everywhere, where it is possible at all.
>
> Your definition of "rich" must be strange indeed.
>
> Does it by chance mean someone with a real job?
>
> I know, and have known, a lot of airplane owners.
>
> Other than one guy who owned a string of furniture stores, I wouldn't
> call any of them anywhere near "rich" by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> I'm an aircraft owner; think I'm "rich"?
>
> I almost bought an airplane when I was a college student on the GI
> bill and working part time (I still regret that I didn't).
>
> Does a college student on the GI bill and working part time fit your
> definition of "rich"?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I have to disagree that most pilot/ aircraft owners qualify as rich.
Flying has more to do with priorities that the amount of money you
make. My observation is that most pilot aircraft owners are more
middle class people that have opted to drive a 20 year old car and own
an airplane rather than buying a new car every 5 years.

A quick drive to a local active airport will confirm this, just look
at the kinds of cars that are driven. You will see a few expensive
cars but the majority will be older less expensive cars.

It costs me less than $100 per month to own and fly my sailplane and
participate as a part owner in a tow plane.

Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> I have to disagree that most pilot/ aircraft owners qualify as rich.
> Flying has more to do with priorities that the amount of money you
> make. My observation is that most pilot aircraft owners are more
> middle class people that have opted to drive a 20 year old car and own
> an airplane rather than buying a new car every 5 years.

Fanatics, in other words. Does the fact that some people are fanatical enough
to sacrifice mundane comforts just to fly mean that flying is accessible to
the average Joe? No, because the average Joe is not a fanatic.

Many poor people in the Third World could afford a TV set if they spent
nothing on anything else. Should we say, then, that the absence of TV sets
among the poor of the Third World is just a matter of inappropriate priorities
among the poor, and that TV is not accessible only to the rich in developed
countries?

> A quick drive to a local active airport will confirm this, just look
> at the kinds of cars that are driven. You will see a few expensive
> cars but the majority will be older less expensive cars.

If aviation were not a rich man's hobby, it wouldn't have to be one or the
other.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fanatics, in other words. Does the fact that some people are fanatical
> enough
> to sacrifice mundane comforts just to fly mean that flying is accessible
> to
> the average Joe? No, because the average Joe is not a fanatic.
>
> Many poor people in the Third World could afford a TV set if they spent
> nothing on anything else. Should we say, then, that the absence of TV
> sets
> among the poor of the Third World is just a matter of inappropriate
> priorities
> among the poor, and that TV is not accessible only to the rich in
> developed
> countries?
>
>
> If aviation were not a rich man's hobby, it wouldn't have to be one or the
> other.
>

So since no one will GIVE you and airplane, the world is a sewer. Geez, grow
up somday!

The lack of TV sets in third world countries has squat to do with anything.
It's just another one of your pathetic excuses to avoild life and the
necessity to work for a living. You want to live your life in a virtual
world just because it cheap, go for it. But stop trying to **** on the
working people because they have goals and priorities. Get off your butt and
put fourth a little effort. Life is not automatically worth living, but
everyone has the opportunity to make it that way.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Brian writes:
>
>> I have to disagree that most pilot/ aircraft owners qualify as rich.
>> Flying has more to do with priorities that the amount of money you
>> make. My observation is that most pilot aircraft owners are more
>> middle class people that have opted to drive a 20 year old car and
>> own an airplane rather than buying a new car every 5 years.
>
> Fanatics, in other words. Does the fact that some people are
> fanatical enough to sacrifice mundane comforts just to fly mean that
> flying is accessible to the average Joe? No, because the average Joe
> is not a fanatic.
>
> Many poor people in the Third World could afford a TV set if they
> spent nothing on anything else. Should we say, then, that the absence
> of TV sets among the poor of the Third World is just a matter of
> inappropriate priorities among the poor, and that TV is not accessible
> only to the rich in developed countries?

You are an idiot. I've lived in third world countries and, actually, TVs
are commonplace amongst even the poor.

Favorite rpgram while I was there? Love Boat reruns and M,arlboro ads.



So, wrong again, fjukktard terrorist wannabe.


Bertei

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Fanatics, in other words. Does the fact that some people are
>> fanatical enough
>> to sacrifice mundane comforts just to fly mean that flying is
>> accessible to
>> the average Joe? No, because the average Joe is not a fanatic.
>>
>> Many poor people in the Third World could afford a TV set if they
>> spent nothing on anything else. Should we say, then, that the
>> absence of TV sets
>> among the poor of the Third World is just a matter of inappropriate
>> priorities
>> among the poor, and that TV is not accessible only to the rich in
>> developed
>> countries?
>>
>>
>> If aviation were not a rich man's hobby, it wouldn't have to be one
>> or the other.
>>
>
> So since no one will GIVE you and airplane, the world is a sewer.
> Geez, grow up somday!

I wouldn't give him a tricycle.


Bertie