VFR position reporting

[Mxsmanic]

I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
do you report your position, and what information should it include?
Which positions do you report and how often?

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

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
>are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
>do you report your position, and what information should it include?

I report our position to my wife and kids any time we're over something
cool. I'll sometimes dip a wing so they can see it. The wing dip isn't
strictly required by ATC, but it keeps the kid on the blind side of the
plane from whining so much.

You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right? I
suppose when flying the Champ I could just yell out the window really
loud, "Hey ATC, I think I'm over Podunkville. Want me to drop down
and read the water tower to doublecheck?".

--
Scott Post

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Post writes:

> You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?

Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
when flying over long distances, don't you?

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

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Scott Post writes:
>
>> You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?
>
>Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
>if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
>requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
>when flying over long distances, don't you?

Surely you aren't planning to make position reports in your game?

--
Scott Post

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
> if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
> requested flight following from ATC).
>

And yet again, you know better than the real pilots. So tell us, how
and where did you get the idea above.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
> are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
> do you report your position, and what information should it include?
> Which positions do you report and how often?
>
Why don't you just take a ground school course? It can be less expensive
than an intro flight, though not nearly as much fun, but it would answer
many of this type of question for you. You could even start arguing with
the instructor about what s/he doesn't know about aviation and get a real
interactive response.

As to this particular primitive question: there is no need to report your
position to anyone unless you are experiencing some problem, regardless of
whether you have flight following. This should be obvious, and easy to
understand by asking yourself, "Who would care to know this information?"

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
> if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
> requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
> when flying over long distances, don't you?

No.

Although many of us use "VFR Flight Following", which puts you in the
ATC system in a way that is similar to IFR flights. Since you're
identified on ATC radar with a discrete squawk code (that they assign
you, and that you dial into your transponder), they (in theory) know
where you are at all times.

The main purpose of flight following, from our end, is to receive
traffic reports, but it also (again, in theory) provides some search &
rescue advantages, should the need arise.

There is no requirement to use it, but (especially in busy airspace) we
use flight following religiously.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve Foley]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message news:Odh8h.27713
> As to this particular primitive question: there is no need to report your
> position to anyone unless you are experiencing some problem, regardless of
> whether you have flight following. This should be obvious, and easy to
> understand by asking yourself, "Who would care to know this information?"

The only time I've done position reporting is flying the Hudson River VFR
corridor.

[Jim Macklin]

Position reports are made to FSS radio, the same place VFR
flight plans are filed. The purpose is to reduce the size
of the area search and rescue would have to search should
you become lost or overdue.
If a VFR flight plan is filed and opened, for a 4 hour, 650
mile flight and you have made position reports, S&R will be
much faster to find you.

It is pretty simple... "Wichita Radio, Piper 12345 with a
position report on 122.2"
When they answer they will probably say. Piper 12345 go
ahead.

You say "Piper 12345 VFR from Ardmore to Lincoln, present
position over Hutchinson, 6500, at 1835, eta Lincoln revised
2130 hours, please advise Lincoln." You can add all kinds
of reports known as PIREPS and you can also request updates
on weather, NOTAMS and TFR.

From the AIM...
5-1-1. Preflight Preparation

a. Every pilot is urged to receive a preflight
briefing and to file a flight plan. This briefing should
consist of the latest or most current weather, airport, and
en route NAVAID information. Briefing service may be
obtained from an FSS either by telephone or interphone, by
radio when airborne, or by a personal visit to the station.
Pilots with a current medical certificate in the 48
contiguous States may access toll-free the Direct User
Access Terminal System (DUATS) through a personal computer.
DUATS will provide alpha-numeric preflight weather data and
allow pilots to file domestic VFR or IFR flight plans.

REFERENCE-
AIM, FAA Weather Services, Paragraph 7-1-2, lists
DUATS vendors.

NOTE-
Pilots filing flight plans via "fast file" who desire
to have their briefing recorded, should include a statement
at the end of the recording as to the source of their
weather briefing.

b. The information required by the FAA to process
flight plans is contained on FAA Form 7233-1, Flight Plan.
The forms are available at all flight service stations.
Additional copies will be provided on request.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Flight Plan- VFR Flights, Paragraph 5-1-4.
AIM, Flight Plan- IFR Flights, Paragraph 5-1-8.

c. Consult an FSS or a Weather Service Office (WSO)
for preflight weather briefing. Supplemental Weather Service
Locations (SWSLs) do not provide weather briefings.

d. FSSs are required to advise of pertinent NOTAMs if
a standard briefing is requested, but if they are
overlooked, don't hesitate to remind the specialist that you
have not received NOTAM information.

NOTE-
NOTAMs which are known in sufficient time for
publication and are of 7 days duration or longer are
normally incorporated into the Notices to Airmen Publication
and carried there until cancellation time. FDC NOTAMs, which
apply to instrument flight procedures, are also included in
the Notices to Airmen Publication up to and including the
number indicated in the FDC NOTAM legend. Printed NOTAMs are
not provided during a briefing unless specifically requested
by the pilot since the FSS specialist has no way of knowing
whether the pilot has already checked the Notices to Airmen
Publication prior to calling. Remember to ask for NOTAMs in
the Notices to Airmen Publication. This information is not
normally furnished during your briefing.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) System, Paragraph 5-1-3.

e. Pilots are urged to use only the latest issue of
aeronautical charts in planning and conducting flight
operations. Aeronautical charts are revised and reissued on
a regular scheduled basis to ensure that depicted data are
current and reliable. In the conterminous U.S., Sectional
Charts are updated every 6 months, IFR En Route Charts every
56 days, and amendments to civil IFR Approach Charts are
accomplished on a 56-day cycle with a change notice volume
issued on the 28-day midcycle. Charts that have been
superseded by those of a more recent date may contain
obsolete or incomplete flight information.

REFERENCE-
AIM, General Description of Each Chart Series,
Paragraph 9-1-4.

f. When requesting a preflight briefing, identify
yourself as a pilot and provide the following:

1. Type of flight planned; e.g., VFR or IFR.

2. Aircraft's number or pilot's name.

3. Aircraft type.

4. Departure Airport.

5. Route of flight.

6. Destination.

7. Flight altitude(s).

8. ETD and ETE.

g. Prior to conducting a briefing, briefers are
required to have the background information listed above so
that they may tailor the briefing to the needs of the
proposed flight. The objective is to communicate a "picture"
of meteorological and aeronautical information necessary for
the conduct of a safe and efficient flight. Briefers use all
available weather and aeronautical information to summarize
data applicable to the proposed flight. They do not read
weather reports and forecasts verbatim unless specifically
requested by the pilot. FSS briefers do not provide FDC
NOTAM information for special instrument approach procedures
unless specifically asked. Pilots authorized by the FAA to
use special instrument approach procedures must specifically
request FDC NOTAM information for these procedures. Pilots
who receive the information electronically will receive
NOTAMs for special IAPs automatically.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Preflight Briefings, Paragraph 7-1-4, contains
those items of a weather briefing that should be expected or
requested.

h. FAA by 14 CFR Part 93, Subpart K, has designated
High Density Traffic Airports (HDTAs) and has prescribed air
traffic rules and requirements for operating aircraft
(excluding helicopter operations) to and from these
airports.

REFERENCE-
Airport/Facility Directory, Special Notices Section.
AIM, Airport Reservation Operations and Special
Traffic Management Programs, Paragraph 4-1-21.

i. In addition to the filing of a flight plan, if the
flight will traverse or land in one or more foreign
countries, it is particularly important that pilots leave a
complete itinerary with someone directly concerned and keep
that person advised of the flight's progress. If serious
doubt arises as to the safety of the flight, that person
should first contact the FSS.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Flights Outside the U.S. and U.S. Territories,
Paragraph 5-1-10.

j. Pilots operating under provisions of 14 CFR Part
135 and not having an FAA assigned 3-letter designator, are
urged to prefix the normal registration (N) number with the
letter "T" on flight plan filing; e.g., TN1234B.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Aircraft Call Signs, Paragraph 4-2-4.

5-1-2. Follow IFR Procedures Even When Operating VFR

a. To maintain IFR proficiency, pilots are urged to
practice IFR procedures whenever possible, even when
operating VFR. Some suggested practices include:

1. Obtain a complete preflight and weather briefing.
Check the NOTAMs.

2. File a flight plan. This is an excellent low cost
insurance policy. The cost is the time it takes to fill it
out. The insurance includes the knowledge that someone will
be looking for you if you become overdue at your
destination.

3. Use current charts.

4. Use the navigation aids. Practice maintaining a
good course-keep the needle centered.

5. Maintain a constant altitude which is appropriate
for the direction of flight.

6. Estimate en route position times.

7. Make accurate and frequent position reports to the
FSSs along your route of flight.

b. Simulated IFR flight is recommended (under the
hood); however, pilots are cautioned to review and adhere to
the requirements specified in 14 CFR Section 91.109 before
and during such flight.

c. When flying VFR at night, in addition to the
altitude appropriate for the direction of flight, pilots
should maintain an altitude which is at or above the minimum
en route altitude as shown on charts. This is especially
true in mountainous terrain, where there is usually very
little ground reference. Do not depend on your eyes alone to
avoid rising unlighted terrain, or even lighted obstructions
such as TV towers.

5-1-3. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) System

a. Time-critical aeronautical information which is of
either a temporary nature or not sufficiently known in
advance to permit publication on aeronautical charts or in
other operational publications receives immediate
dissemination via the National NOTAM System.

NOTE-
1. NOTAM information is that aeronautical information
that could affect a pilot's decision to make a flight. It
includes such information as airport or primary runway
closures, changes in the status of navigational aids, ILSs,
radar service availability, and other information essential
to planned en route, terminal, or landing operations.

2. NOTAM information is transmitted using standard
contractions to reduce transmission time. See TBL 5-1-1 for
a listing of the most commonly used contractions.

b. NOTAM information is classified into three
categories. These are NOTAM (D) or distant, NOTAM (L) or
local, and Flight Data Center (FDC) NOTAMs.

1. NOTAM (D) information is disseminated for all
navigational facilities that are part of the National
Airspace System (NAS), all public use airports, seaplane
bases, and heliports listed in the Airport/ Facility
Directory (A/FD). The complete file of all NOTAM (D)
information is maintained in a computer database at the
Weather Message Switching Center (WMSC), located in Atlanta,
Georgia. This category of information is distributed
automatically via Service A telecommunications system. Air
traffic facilities, primarily FSSs, with Service A
capability have access to the entire WMSC database of
NOTAMs. These NOTAMs remain available via Service A for the
duration of their validity or until published. Once
published, the NOTAM data is deleted from the system.

2. NOTAM (L)

(a) NOTAM (L) information includes such data as
taxiway closures, personnel and equipment near or crossing
runways, and airport lighting aids that do not affect
instrument approach criteria, such as VASI.

(b) NOTAM (L) information is distributed locally only
and is not attached to the hourly weather reports. A
separate file of local NOTAMs is maintained at each FSS for
facilities in their area only. NOTAM (L) information for
other FSS areas must be specifically requested directly from
the FSS that has responsibility for the airport concerned.

3. FDC NOTAMs

(a) On those occasions when it becomes necessary to
disseminate information which is regulatory in nature, the
National Flight Data Center (NFDC), in Washington, DC, will
issue an FDC NOTAM. FDC NOTAMs contain such things as
amendments to published IAPs and other current aeronautical
charts. They are also used to advertise temporary flight
restrictions caused by such things as natural disasters or
large-scale public events that may generate a congestion of
air traffic over a site.

(b) FDC NOTAMs are transmitted via Service A only once
and are kept on file at the FSS until published or canceled.
FSSs are responsible for maintaining a file of current,
unpublished FDC NOTAMs concerning conditions within 400
miles of their facilities. FDC information concerning
conditions that are more than 400 miles from the FSS, or
that is already published, is given to a pilot only on
request.

NOTE-
1. DUATS vendors will provide FDC NOTAMs only upon
site-specific requests using a location identifier.

2. NOTAM data may not always be current due to the
changeable nature of national airspace system components,
delays inherent in processing information, and occasional
temporary outages of the U.S. NOTAM system. While en route,
pilots should contact FSSs and obtain updated information
for their route of flight and destination.

c. An integral part of the NOTAM System is the Notices
to Airmen Publication (NTAP) published every four weeks.
Data is included in this publication to reduce congestion on
the telecommunications circuits and, therefore, is not
available via Service A. Once published, the information is
not provided during pilot weather briefings unless
specifically requested by the pilot. This publication
contains two sections.

1. The first section consists of notices that meet the
criteria for NOTAM (D) and are expected to remain in effect
for an extended period and FDC NOTAMs that are current at
the time of publication. Occasionally, some NOTAM (L) and
other unique information is included in this section when it
will contribute to flight safety.

2. The second section contains special notices that
are either too long or concern a wide or unspecified
geographic area and are not suitable for inclusion in the
first section. The content of these notices vary widely and
there are no specific criteria for their inclusion, other
than their enhancement of flight safety.

3. The number of the last FDC NOTAM included in the
publication is noted on the first page to aid the user in
updating the listing with any FDC NOTAMs which may have been
issued between the cut-off date and the date the publication
is received. All information contained will be carried until
the information expires, is canceled, or in the case of
permanent conditions, is published in other publications,
such as the A/FD.

4. All new notices entered, excluding FDC NOTAMs, will
be published only if the information is expected to remain
in effect for at least 7 days after the effective date of
the publication.

d. NOTAM information is not available from a
Supplemental Weather Service Locations (SWSL).

TBL 5-1-1

NOTAM CONTRACTIONS


A

AADC
Approach and Departure Control

ABV
Above

A/C
Approach Control

ACCUM
Accumulate

ACFT
Aircraft

ACR
Air Carrier

ACTV/ACTVT
Active/Activate

ADF
Automatic Direction Finder

ADJ
Adjacent

ADZ/ADZD
Advise/Advised

AFD
Airport/Facility Directory

AFSS
Automated Flight Service Station

ALS
Approach Light System

ALTM
Altimeter

ALTN/ALTNLY
Alternate/Alternately

ALSTG
Altimeter Setting

AMDT
Amendment

APCH
Approach

APL
Airport Lights

ARFF
Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting

ARPT
Airport

ARSR
Air Route Surveillance Radar

ASDE
Airport Surface Detection Equipment

ASOS
Automated Surface Observing System

ASPH
Asphalt

ASR
Airport Surveillance Radar

ATC
Air Traffic Control

ATCT
Airport Traffic Control Tower

ATIS
Automated Terminal Information Service

AVBL
Available

AWOS
Automatic Weather Observing System

AZM
Azimuth


B

BC
Back Course

BCN
Beacon

BERM
Snowbank/s Containing Earth/Gravel

BLO
Below

BND
Bound

BRAF
Braking Action Fair

BRAG
Braking Action Good

BRAN
Braking Action Nil

BRAP
Braking Action Poor

BYD
Beyond


C

CAAS
Class A Airspace

CAT
Category

CBAS
Class B Airspace

CBSA
Class B Surface Area

CCAS
Class C Airspace

CCLKWS
Counterclockwise

CCSA
Class C Surface Area

CD
Clearance Delivery

CDAS
Class D Airspace

CDSA
Class D Surface Area

CEAS
Class E Airspace

CESA
Class E Surface Area

CFA
Controlled Firing Area

CGAS
Class G Airspace

CHG
Change

CLKWS
Clockwise

CLNC
Clearance

CLSD
Closed

CMSN/CMSND
Commission/Commissioned

CNCL/CNCLD/CNL
Cancel/Canceled/Cancel

CNTRLN
Centerline

CONC
Concrete

CONT
Continue/Continuously

CRS
Course

CTAF
Common Traffic Advisory Frequency

CTLZ
Control Zone


D

DALGT
Daylight

DCMS/DCMSND
Decommission/Decommissioned

DCT
Direct

DEP
Depart/Departure

DEPT
Department

DH
Decision Height

DISABLD
Disabled

DLA/DLAD
Delay/Delayed

DLT/DLTD
Delete/Deleted

DLY
Daily

DME
Distance Measuring Equipment

DMSTN
Demonstration

DP
Instrument Departure Procedure

DPCR
Departure Procedure

DRCT
Direct

DRFT/DRFTD
Drift/Drifted Snowbank/s Caused By Wind Action

DSPLCD
Displaced

DSTC
Distance

DWPNT
Dew Point


E

E
East

EBND
Eastbound

EFAS
En Route Flight Advisory Service

EFF
Effective

ELEV
Elevate/Elevation

ENG
Engine

ENTR
Entire

EXCP
Except


F

FA
Final Approach

FAC
Facility

FAF
Final Approach Fix

FDC
Flight Data Center

FM
Fan Marker

FREQ
Frequency

FRH
Fly Runway Heading

FRZN
Frozen

FRNZ SLR
Frozen Slush on Runway/s

FSS
Flight Service Station


G

GC
Ground Control

GCA
Ground Controlled Approach

GOVT
Government

GP
Glide Path

GPS
Global Positioning System

GRVL
Gravel

GS
Glide Slope


H

HAA
Height Above Airport

HAT
Height Above Touchdown

HAZ
Hazard

HEL
Helicopter

HELI
Heliport

HF
High Frequency

HIRL
High Intensity Runway Lights

HIWAS
Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service

HOL
Holiday

HP
Holding Pattern


I

IAP
Instrument Approach Procedure

IBND
Inbound

ID
Identification

IDENT
Identify/Identifier/Identification

IFR
Instrument Flight Rules

ILS
Instrument Landing System

IM
Inner Marker

IN
Inch/Inches

INDEFLY
Indefinitely

INOP
Inoperative

INST
Instrument

INT
Intersection

INTST
Intensity

IR
Ice On Runway/s


L

L
Left

LAA
Local Airport Advisory

LAT
Latitude

LAWRS
Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Station

LB
Pound/Pounds

LC
Local Control

LCL
Local

LCTD
Located

LDA
Localizer Type Directional Aid

LDIN
Lead In Lighting System

LGT/LGTD/LGTS
Light/Lighted/Lights

LIRL
Low Intensity Runway Edge Lights

LLWAS
Low Level Wind Shear Alert System

LMM
Compass Locator at ILS Middle Marker

LNDG
Landing

LOC
Localizer

LOM
Compass Locator at ILS Outer Marker

LONG
Longitude

LRN
LORAN

LSR
Loose Snow on Runway/s

LT
Left Turn After Take-off


M

MALS
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System

MALSF
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with
Sequenced Flashers

MALSR
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with
Runway Alignment Indicator Lights

MAP
Missed Approach Point

MCA
Minimum Crossing Altitude

MDA
Minimum Descent Altitude

MEA
Minimum En Route Altitude

MED
Medium

MIN
Minute

MIRL
Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lights

MLS
Microwave Landing System

MM
Middle Marker

MNM
Minimum

MOCA
Minimum Obstruction Clearance Altitude

MONTR
Monitor

MSA
Minimum Safe Altitude/Minimum Sector Altitude

MSAW
Minimum Safe Altitude Warning

MSL
Mean Sea Level

MU
Designate a Friction Value Representing Runway
Surface Conditions

MUD
Mud

MUNI
Municipal


N

N
North

NA
Not Authorized

NBND
Northbound

NDB
Nondirectional Radio Beacon

NE
Northeast

NGT
Night

NM
Nautical Mile/s

NMR
Nautical Mile Radius

NOPT
No Procedure Turn Required

NTAP
Notice To Airmen Publication

NW
Northwest


O

OBSC
Obscured

OBSTN
Obstruction

OM
Outer Marker

OPER
Operate

OPN
Operation

ORIG
Original

OTS
Out of Service

OVR
Over


P

PAEW
Personnel and Equipment Working

PAJA
Parachute Jumping Activities

PAPI
Precision Approach Path Indicator

PAR
Precision Approach Radar

PARL
Parallel

PAT
Pattern

PCL
Pilot Controlled Lighting

PERM/PERMLY
Permanent/Permanently

PLA
Practice Low Approach

PLW
Plow/Plowed

PN
Prior Notice Required

PPR
Prior Permission Required

PREV
Previous

PRIRA
Primary Radar

PROC
Procedure

PROP
Propeller

PSGR
Passenger/s

PSR
Packed Snow on Runway/s

PT/PTN
Procedure Turn

PVT
Private


R

RAIL
Runway Alignment Indicator Lights

RCAG
Remote Communication Air/Ground Facility

RCL
Runway Centerline

RCLS
Runway Centerline Light System

RCO
Remote Communication Outlet

RCV/RCVR
Receive/Receiver

REF
Reference

REIL
Runway End Identifier Lights

RELCTD
Relocated

RMDR
Remainder

RNAV
Area Navigation

RPRT
Report

RQRD
Required

RRL
Runway Remaining Lights

RSVN
Reservation

RT
Right Turn after Take-off

RTE
Route

RTR
Remote Transmitter/Receiver

RTS
Return to Service

RUF
Rough

RVR
Runway Visual Range

RVRM
RVR Midpoint

RVRR
RVR Rollout

RVRT
RVR Touchdown

RVV
Runway Visibility Value

RY/RWY
Runway


S

S
South

SBND
Southbound

SDF
Simplified Directional Facility

SE
Southeast

SECRA
Secondary Radar

SFL
Sequenced Flashing Lights

SI
Straight-In Approach

SIR
Packed or Compacted Snow and Ice on Runway/s

SKED
Scheduled

SLR
Slush on Runway/s

SNBNK
Snowbank/s Caused by Plowing

SND
Sand/Sanded

SNGL
Single

SNW
Snow

SPD
Speed

SR
Sunrise

SS
Sunset

SSALF
Simplified Short Approach Lighting System with
Sequenced Flashers

SSALR
Simplified Short Approach Lighting System with
Runway Alignment Indicator Lights

SSALS
Simplified Short Approach Lighting System

STAR
Standard Terminal Arrival

SVC
Service

SW
Southwest

SWEPT
Swept or Broom/Broomed


T

TACAN
Tactical Air Navigational Aid

TDZ/TDZL
Touchdown Zone/Touchdown Zone Lights

TFC
Traffic

TFR
Temporary Flight Restriction

TGL
Touch and Go Landings

THN
Thin

THR
Threshold

THRU
Through

TIL
Until

TKOF
Takeoff

TMPRY
Temporary

TRML
Terminal

TRNG
Training

TRSA
Terminal Radar Service Area

TRSN
Transition

TSNT
Transient

TWEB
Transcribed Weather Broadcast

TWR
Tower

TWY
Taxiway


U

UNAVBL
Unavailable

UNLGTD
Unlighted

UNMKD
Unmarked

UNMON
Unmonitored

UNRELBL
Unreliable

UNUSBL
Unusable


V

VASI
Visual Approach Slope Indicator

VDP
Visual Descent Point

VFR
Visual Flight Rules

VIA
By Way Of

VICE
Instead/Versus

VIS/VSBY
Visibility

VMC
Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOL
Volume

VOLMET
Meteorlogical Information for Aircraft in Flight

VOR
VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range

VORTAC
VOR and TACAN (collocated)

VOT
VOR Test Signal


W

W
West

WBND
Westbound

WEA/WX
Weather

WI
Within

WKDAYS
Monday through Friday

WKEND
Saturday and Sunday

WND
Wind

WP
Waypoint

WSR
Wet Snow on Runway/s

WTR
Water on Runway/s

WX
Weather

/
And

+
In Addition/Also


5-1-4. Flight Plan - VFR Flights

a. Except for operations in or penetrating a Coastal
or Domestic ADIZ or DEWIZ a flight plan is not required for
VFR flight.

REFERENCE-
AIM, National Security, Paragraph 5-6-1.

b. It is strongly recommended that a flight plan (for
a VFR flight) be filed with an FAA FSS. This will ensure
that you receive VFR Search and Rescue Protection.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Search and Rescue, Paragraph 6-2-7 gives the
proper method of filing a VFR flight plan.

c. To obtain maximum benefits from the flight plan
program, flight plans should be filed directly with the
nearest FSS. For your convenience, FSSs provide aeronautical
and meteorological briefings while accepting flight plans.
Radio may be used to file if no other means are available.

NOTE-
Some states operate aeronautical communications
facilities which will accept and forward flight plans to the
FSS for further handling.

d. When a "stopover" flight is anticipated, it is
recommended that a separate flight plan be filed for each
"leg" when the stop is expected to be more than 1 hour
duration.

e. Pilots are encouraged to give their departure times
directly to the FSS serving the departure airport or as
otherwise indicated by the FSS when the flight plan is
filed. This will ensure more efficient flight plan service
and permit the FSS to advise you of significant changes in
aeronautical facilities or meteorological conditions. When a
VFR flight plan is filed, it will be held by the FSS until 1
hour after the proposed departure time unless:

1. The actual departure time is received.

2. A revised proposed departure time is received.

3. At a time of filing, the FSS is informed that the
proposed departure time will be met, but actual time cannot
be given because of inadequate communications (assumed
departures).

f. On pilot's request, at a location having an active
tower, the aircraft identification will be forwarded by the
tower to the FSS for reporting the actual departure time.
This procedure should be avoided at busy airports.

g. Although position reports are not required for VFR
flight plans, periodic reports to FAA FSSs along the route
are good practice. Such contacts permit significant
information to be passed to the transiting aircraft and also
serve to check the progress of the flight should it be
necessary for any reason to locate the aircraft.

EXAMPLE-
1. Bonanza 314K, over Kingfisher at (time), VFR flight
plan, Tulsa to Amarillo.

2. Cherokee 5133J, over Oklahoma City at (time),
Shreveport to Denver, no flight plan.

h. Pilots not operating on an IFR flight plan and when
in level cruising flight, are cautioned to conform with VFR
cruising altitudes appropriate to the direction of flight.

i. When filing VFR flight plans, indicate aircraft
equipment capabilities by appending the appropriate suffix
to aircraft type in the same manner as that prescribed for
IFR flight.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Flight Plan- IFR Flights, Paragraph 5-1-8.

j. Under some circumstances, ATC computer tapes can be
useful in constructing the radar history of a downed or
crashed aircraft. In each case, knowledge of the aircraft's
transponder equipment is necessary in determining whether or
not such computer tapes might prove effective.



If playing a game in a PC sim, a position report of,
VFR Cape Kennedy to the Moon with two lunatics aboard is
appropriate.








"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:mmi8h.764$ki3.434@trndny01...
| "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
news:Odh8h.27713
| > As to this particular primitive question: there is no
need to report your
| > position to anyone unless you are experiencing some
problem, regardless of
| > whether you have flight following. This should be
obvious, and easy to
| > understand by asking yourself, "Who would care to know
this information?"
|
| The only time I've done position reporting is flying the
Hudson River VFR
| corridor.
|
|

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Somehow, I can't imagine the need to call for SAR while sitting in front of
my computer playing a game. Perhaps if I fell out of the chair and had a
head injury and became disoriented?

I also can't imagine making imaginary calls to ATC and having conversations
with the computer generated voices in MSFS- it reminds me of my son at the
age of four running around with a toy airplane making engine noises. It may
be normal for a child, but for an adult to talk to the computer and make
position reports.....?

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
> are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
> do you report your position, and what information should it include?
> Which positions do you report and how often?
>

To FSS (Fligh****ch)

[Steve Foley]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Position reports are made to FSS radio, the same place VFR
> flight plans are filed. The purpose is to reduce the size
> of the area search and rescue would have to search should
> you become lost or overdue.

Is FSS radio now Lockheed-Martin? Has the wait time increased as much as
800-WX-BRIEF?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:13:26 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Scott Post writes:
>
>> You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?
>
>Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
>if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
>requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
>when flying over long distances, don't you?

Nope, never have. Closest I've come is activating flight plans.

Ron Wanttaja

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:15:03 +0000, Viperdoc wrote:

> it reminds me of
> my son at the age of four running around with a toy airplane making engine
> noises. It may be normal for a child

Uh oh.

I do this w/my four year old. That is, I also run around with a toy
airplane making engine noises.

That's bad?

Of course, he knows what a takeoff and landing look like from "outside".
He knows about touch and goes and stop and goes. He knows how an airplane
turns (ie. the banking) and why. He knows how to flare with flair. He
knows the difference between a tail dragger and a nose dragger. He knows
the difference between airplanes with the prop outside the engine and the
prop inside the engine (I've spared him a discussion of ramjets {8^).

He's been flying with me numerous times. But always going somewhere (even
if just to a park at some other airport). Except just a couple of days
ago, he said he wanted to join me for some T&Gs.

So I opine that an adult running around with a toy airplane making engine
noises can be a fine thing indeed.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:49:41 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

> Has the wait time increased as much as
> 800-WX-BRIEF?

Dunno. Here in NJ, a lot of the VORs are still "broken" (ie. no voice)
due to the sudden closing of Millville. It makes me wonder how they have,
or will have, handled other FSS closings.

How much time should it take to redirect these "circuits" (whatever form
they take) from the old Millville FSS to whomever would own the VORs
(Williamssomething?)?

I do know that calling for NOTAMs is a joke. We get someone
(Williamssomething) that doesn't "officially" receive the local NOTAMs).
They get a FAX each morning from the FSS that does get them.

It's actually very strange, and I don't pretend to understand it. The FSS
specialists to whom I've spoken about it don't either.

- Andrew

[Steve Foley]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...

> I do know that calling for NOTAMs is a joke.

Tell me about it.

I called a few months back and ended up with someone in NY (I'm in
Massachusetts and normally get Bridgeport CT or Burlington VT). They didn't
have any local NOTAMS and suggested I call a local number for Bridgeport.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I agree completely- the picture I had was of an adult male sitting in front
of a computer "talking" and making position reports with a game, and then
getting upset and asking why he couldn't make out a road on the pixelated
and smoothed out imagery of MSFS. This image is a little more troubling.

I let my now ten year old dial frequency changes on the radios, and let him
take the stick and fly for a while as well. (referring now to flying a real
airplane, and not MSFS, which he finds boring) He enjoys the participation.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Post writes:

> Surely you aren't planning to make position reports in your game?

I have already done so. That's what distinguishes simulation from
games.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> I also can't imagine making imaginary calls to ATC and having conversations
> with the computer generated voices in MSFS ...

The AI ATC in MSFS does not support position reports (or flight
following), except for a few limited circumstances (such as during an
approach).

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

[Bob Gardner]

Uh... Andrew, you do realize that Flight Watch is a purely weather position
with no other responsibilities, right? Call FSS, yes, call Flight Watch, no.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
>> are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
>> do you report your position, and what information should it include?
>> Which positions do you report and how often?
>>
>
> To FSS (Fligh****ch)
>

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Why don't you just take a ground school course?

It would be in French, and I don't want to learn about French
aviation. It would be expensive, and I have no money for such things.
It would be very time-consuming, and I don't have enough time for
that. And it would probably be at an airport somewhere, for which I
have no transportation.

I read books when I can afford them, and I visit Web sites.

> It can be less expensive than an intro flight, though not
> nearly as much fun, but it would answer many of this type of
> question for you.

I can't afford classes or intro flights.

> As to this particular primitive question: there is no need to report your
> position to anyone unless you are experiencing some problem, regardless of
> whether you have flight following. This should be obvious, and easy to
> understand by asking yourself, "Who would care to know this information?"

Search and rescue teams. If you never provide a position report, they
won't know where you went down. If, like many VFR pilots, you don't
even bother to file a flight plan, they might not even know you are
missing. By the time they look for you and find you, you're dead.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And yet again, you know better than the real pilots. So tell us, how
> and where did you get the idea above.

From real pilots.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> There is no requirement to use it, but (especially in busy airspace) we
> use flight following religiously.

But isn't busy airspace more likely to turn you down?

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Post writes:
>
>> Surely you aren't planning to make position reports in your game?
>
> I have already done so. That's what distinguishes simulation from
> games.
>

You worry about VFR position reports yet you haven't gotten around to
learning how to use trim. You are playing a game that simulates flying.

I saw this article the other day and thought about you.
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/members/student_pilot/maneuvers/articles/3582.cfm

[Travis Marlatte]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Search and rescue teams. If you never provide a position report, they
> won't know where you went down. If, like many VFR pilots, you don't
> even bother to file a flight plan, they might not even know you are
> missing. By the time they look for you and find you, you're dead.


This is correct. From the pilots I have talked to, I see several
philosophies: 1) Flying over popluated areas, a crash is going to be known
and reported well before any automated trigger for search and rescue would
be initiated; 2) A wife/SO/friend knows to call FSS if they don't call/show
up by XX:XX; 3) File a flight plan so at least they will have a route path
to search; 4) File a flight plan and use flight following. ATC will prompt
for position reports if they don't have radar coverage. There are no
mandatory reporting points for VFR flights even on a flight plan; 5) Don't
do anything. Ce La Vie.

In terms of timing the start of search and rescue, 2) and 3) are about the
same. 1) is only good if the whole flight is over populated areas. 4) will
get the fastest response and has other benefits. 5) is unacceptable for my
personal minimums.

I tend not to file flight plans only because I don't typically go from point
A to point B. Sometimes, I don't know where I will end up or how I will get
there. A flight plan would only have them searching in the wrong place.

2) is always armed for me but then I have a loving partner and family. I
tend to write out my basic plan so that they can (while fighting back the
tears) convey to FSS the best places to search. Backing that up is either 1)
or 4).

Filing a flight plan with passengers on board is a mixed bag. On the one
had, I want to offer the most protection to my passengers as possible. On
the other hand, it is nice to be able to chit-chat and sightsee without
worring about ATC.

It is pretty unusual to just call FSS out of the blue with a position
report. They will certainly make a note of it but without 2), it won't do
much good until days later when you don't show up for work. Other than
filing a flight plan, there is no such thing as "N123 over podunk VOR. If
you don't hear from me in an hour, come looking."
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> By the time they look for you and find you, you're dead.
>

And the likelyhood of this what, based on which statistics? In other
words, are we talking about a real-world problem or something you made
up as a hypothetical scenario?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> From real pilots.
>

Somehow, I doubt that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

You can file all of the position reports you want, or not- it won't make any
difference since you are not flying. The majority of planes registered in
the US are equipped with ELT's (look it up), which is why most pilots no
longer need to file position reports. The newer ELT's with GPS interface are
now detectable by SARSAT within the accuracy of the GPS signal.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> As to this particular primitive question: there is no need to report
>> your position to anyone unless you are experiencing some problem,
>> regardless of whether you have flight following. This should be
>> obvious, and easy to understand by asking yourself, "Who would care
>> to know this information?"
>
> Search and rescue teams.
>
Then, read up on the use of "Mayday", and Bob's your uncle.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You worry about VFR position reports yet you haven't gotten around to
> learning how to use trim.

I know how to use trim.

> You are playing a game that simulates flying.

As opposed to flying and behaving as if it were a game.

> I saw this article the other day and thought about you.
> http://flighttraining.aopa.org/members/student_pilot/maneuvers/articles/3582.cfm

Since I'm not a member, there's no point in giving me a link.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And the likelyhood of this what, based on which statistics? In other
> words, are we talking about a real-world problem or something you made
> up as a hypothetical scenario?

I like to keep safety on my side. You can do what you want.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You can file all of the position reports you want, or not- it won't make any
> difference since you are not flying. The majority of planes registered in
> the US are equipped with ELT's (look it up), which is why most pilots no
> longer need to file position reports. The newer ELT's with GPS interface are
> now detectable by SARSAT within the accuracy of the GPS signal.

Aircraft with plenty of fuel on board will often burst into flames
when they crash, so pilots who still have lots of fuel need not file
position reports.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > There is no requirement to use it, but (especially in busy airspace) we
> > use flight following religiously.
>
> But isn't busy airspace more likely to turn you down?

Yes. Most of the time they don't, though.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Garret]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > There is no requirement to use it, but (especially in busy airspace) we
> > > use flight following religiously.
> >
> > But isn't busy airspace more likely to turn you down?
>
> Yes. Most of the time they don't, though.

I beg to differ. I fly in the LA basin (my home base is VNY) all the
time and not once in over ten years of flying have I ever been denied
flight following here.

The only time I have been denied flight following was in the middle of
nowhere, returning to LA from Santa Fe. There were thunderstorms and
IFR flights were diverting all over the place.

rg

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

As usual, the logic of your argument is flawless. I apologize. My main
computer crashed and I have been working off of my laptop, and I had
neglected to add you to the killfile. It won't happen again.

[Ron Lee]

I have filed perhaps three flight plans in the last few years. I use
flight following. My assumption is that you are in constant contact
with ATC and if a problem developed a quick call alerts them if you
need to land off airport.

Plus I have a 406 MHz PLB (GPS equipped) that provides acual location
to SAR organizations.

Ron Lee

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I like to keep safety on my side.
>

Well, you're sitting in a room. That should do it, no reporting
necessary.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Aircraft with plenty of fuel on board will often burst into flames
> when they crash,
>

Oh? Factual support?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[randall g]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:08:01 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
>are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
>do you report your position, and what information should it include?
>Which positions do you report and how often?


Flying in southern British Columbia (outside the radar environment
around Vancouver-Victoria), I will use flight following if I am high
enough. This is not always practical (there are areas where 10500 feet
is too low) so I will call FSS whenever I come near another FSS or RCO
with a position report. I always file a flight plan. There is a lot of
remote territory around here.



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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You worry about VFR position reports yet you haven't gotten around to
>> learning how to use trim.
>
> I know how to use trim.

You didn't a week or so ago.



>
>> You are playing a game that simulates flying.
>
> As opposed to flying and behaving as if it were a game.
>

Some how your thought on my flying skills concern me not in the least.


>> I saw this article the other day and thought about you.
>> http://flighttraining.aopa.org/members/student_pilot/maneuvers/articles/3582.cfm
>
> Since I'm not a member, there's no point in giving me a link.
>

Sorry

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:28:31 +0000, Viperdoc wrote:

> the picture I had was of an adult

That pretty much excludes the OP, if that's to whom you were referring.

> male sitting in
> front of a computer "talking" and making position reports with a game, and
> then getting upset and asking why he couldn't make out a road on the
> pixelated and smoothed out imagery of MSFS. This image is a little more
> troubling.

<Shrug> There are a lot of people that seem to be involved in aviation
simulation. There's even this "network" of them where some play pilot
while others play controller. They actually do talk to one another.

Most of them are harmless. Some are going to become pilots; others will
remain forever pretenders. But I'm no better than a pretend cook, so who
am I to judge?

Unfortunately, one likes to post here as if he's an actual pilot.
Admittedly, that does seem disconnected from reality. But I'm sure a
qualified shrink would find my own disconnects w/o too much trouble, so...

> I let my now ten year old dial frequency changes on the radios, and let
> him take the stick and fly for a while as well. (referring now to
> flying a real airplane, and not MSFS, which he finds boring) He enjoys
> the participation.

Of course! I look forward to years of that "participation" as my own sons
age into the front seat (and then their own certificates, not that I'm
biased or anything {8^).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:33:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> Uh... Andrew, you do realize that Flight Watch is a purely weather
> position with no other responsibilities, right? Call FSS, yes, call Flight
> Watch, no.

I've often wondered: why the distinction? Isn't Flight Watch the same set
of people?

- Andrew (a different Andrew)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:53:35 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:

> The only time I have been denied flight following was in the middle of
> nowhere, returning to LA from Santa Fe. There were thunderstorms and IFR
> flights were diverting all over the place.

Being denied flight following in the NE New Jersey area isn't unheard of,
although it's certainly not common. Something going on (ie. last time
there was a RADAR down somewhere, though not where I was so I didn't grasp
the connection) certainly makes denial more likely.

But mere volume is sufficient, at least for some controllers.

- Andrew

[Viperdoc[_2_]]

Why argue with his trolling? The killfile would be a lot more useful.

[Bob Gardner]

Thomas!! You mean that you have never seen a small airplane crash during a
television show? <g> Humonguous ball of flame extending hundreds of feet
into the air. Scary, until you realize that the airplane being shown has a
max fuel capacity of maybe 50 gallons.

Bob Gardner

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> Aircraft with plenty of fuel on board will often burst into flames
>> when they crash,
>>
>
> Oh? Factual support?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Bob Gardner]

They all work in the same building and get paid from the same pool of money,
but the last time I visited the Seattle AFSS there was one person at the
Flight Watch position whose sole responsibility it was to answer queries
about the weather on 122.0...s/he worked no other frequency. And his scope
did not have a flight plan screen, as did the other scopes in the room.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:33:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Uh... Andrew, you do realize that Flight Watch is a purely weather
>> position with no other responsibilities, right? Call FSS, yes, call
>> Flight
>> Watch, no.
>
> I've often wondered: why the distinction? Isn't Flight Watch the same set
> of people?
>
> - Andrew (a different Andrew)
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/20/06 14:13, Bob Gardner wrote:
> Thomas!! You mean that you have never seen a small airplane crash during a
> television show? <g> Humonguous ball of flame extending hundreds of feet
> into the air. Scary, until you realize that the airplane being shown has a
> max fuel capacity of maybe 50 gallons.

Yes, in fact I've seen (on TV) cars explode three and four times. Especially
when they drive off a cliff.

That's real, isn't it? ;-)

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>>> Aircraft with plenty of fuel on board will often burst into flames
>>> when they crash,
>>>
>>
>> Oh? Factual support?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
>are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
>do you report your position, and what information should it include?
>Which positions do you report and how often?

1) No one.
2) None.
3) Not ever.

Unless you are on flight following or in airspace that requires
radio contact, there is no obligation to talk to anyone.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
>>are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
>>do you report your position, and what information should it include?
>>Which positions do you report and how often?
>
> 1) No one.
> 2) None.
> 3) Not ever.
>
> Unless you are on flight following or in airspace that requires
> radio contact, there is no obligation to talk to anyone.
>

Even Flight Following is not going to ask you for position reports, as they
already know where you're at, except on initial call up, you should provide
your approximate position. I know some people will include position when
they check-in with a controller they have been handed off to, but isn't
necessary.

[Ron Lee]

Mark Hansen > wrote:

>On 11/20/06 14:13, Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Thomas!! You mean that you have never seen a small airplane crash during a
>> television show? <g> Humonguous ball of flame extending hundreds of feet
>> into the air. Scary, until you realize that the airplane being shown has a
>> max fuel capacity of maybe 50 gallons.
>
>Yes, in fact I've seen (on TV) cars explode three and four times. Especially
>when they drive off a cliff.
>
>That's real, isn't it? ;-)

What is neat is when they explode just after going off a cliff, in
midair without hitting anything. It must be magic. Or a Ford
featured in the faked news footage of some time ago.

Ron Lee

[A Lieberma]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in
news:RfOdnVwDSesXqf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com:

> I know some people will
> include position when they check-in with a controller they have been
> handed off to, but isn't necessary.

Interesting as I have never heard anybody give their position when handed
off? What do they say for their position.

Only thing I report on hand offs is my altitude and read back the altimeter
if center acknowleges me with a altimeter setting.

I.E.
Memphis Center Sundowner one niner four three lima 7000

I have never heard anything any different other then an initial callup
where they give location, altitude and request VFR flight following or an
IFR picking up their clearance.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You didn't a week or so ago.

I've always known how it works. I did ask how pilots normally used it
to see how often they feel inclined to trim in real life.

I've known most of the basic principles of flight for many years.
It's the implementation and procedural details that I ask about.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Gideon writes:

> <Shrug> There are a lot of people that seem to be involved in aviation
> simulation. There's even this "network" of them where some play pilot
> while others play controller. They actually do talk to one another.
>
> Most of them are harmless. Some are going to become pilots; others will
> remain forever pretenders.

And many of them are already pilots. Simulation is dramatically
cheaper and simpler than actual flight, and most pilots can afford to
fly only a few hours per month (or year), unless they do it for a
living.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Well, you're sitting in a room. That should do it, no reporting
> necessary.

I'm simulating real life, therefore reporting is a good idea.

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

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in
> news:RfOdnVwDSesXqf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com:
>
>> I know some people will
>> include position when they check-in with a controller they have been
>> handed off to, but isn't necessary.
>
> Interesting as I have never heard anybody give their position when handed
> off? What do they say for their position.
>
> Only thing I report on hand offs is my altitude and read back the
> altimeter
> if center acknowleges me with a altimeter setting.
>
> I.E.
> Memphis Center Sundowner one niner four three lima 7000
>
> I have never heard anything any different other then an initial callup
> where they give location, altitude and request VFR flight following or an
> IFR picking up their clearance.
>

I don't include position in a handoff, but there was discussion on the
pilots alias at work about a month ago and some did say they included their
position...

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> 1) No one.
> 2) None.
> 3) Not ever.
>
> Unless you are on flight following or in airspace that requires
> radio contact, there is no obligation to talk to anyone.

I wasn't asking about obligations, I was asking about safe practices
and the procedures in place that allow them.

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

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Computers can spontaneously start electical fires- perhaps in the interests
of safety you should stop posting.

[Jim Macklin]

Flight Watch is intended for weather and PIREPS, although in
an emergency, they will talk to you about the impending
crash or the other condition. But they are setup as weather
specialists.

For the real student pilots out there, position reports are
often a life saver. In areas of mountains, swamps, oceans
and deserts, even your slow trainer can get you many miles
away from your last known position in just a few minutes. A
flight plan files with a 90 minute ETE will often require a
search over several hundred square miles unless you have
either made accurate position reports, or received radar
service/flight following from ATC. Although VFR position
reports are usually given directly to FSS Radio on one of
the frequencies publish on the sectional chart or in the
AFD, you can give a VFR position report to ATC even if you
are not in radar contact, just call Center [call sign] VFR
position report. They will be able to record the report and
are happy to do so, particularly in remote areas.

Learn the format for a position report and don't waste their
time stammering. When you start IFR training, you'll be
ahead of the class.


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

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
| They all work in the same building and get paid from the
same pool of money,
| but the last time I visited the Seattle AFSS there was one
person at the
| Flight Watch position whose sole responsibility it was to
answer queries
| about the weather on 122.0...s/he worked no other
frequency. And his scope
| did not have a flight plan screen, as did the other scopes
in the room.
|
| Bob Gardner
|
| "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:33:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:
| >
| >> Uh... Andrew, you do realize that Flight Watch is a
purely weather
| >> position with no other responsibilities, right? Call
FSS, yes, call
| >> Flight
| >> Watch, no.
| >
| > I've often wondered: why the distinction? Isn't Flight
Watch the same set
| > of people?
| >
| > - Andrew (a different Andrew)
| >
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Computers can spontaneously start electical fires- perhaps in the interests
> of safety you should stop posting.

In the interest of safety I do take precautions against overheating of
components. Whether or not I post has no effect on the fire risk,
though.

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

[BT]

if you are making position reports
do you not then have flight following?
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
> are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
> do you report your position, and what information should it include?
> Which positions do you report and how often?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Not necessarily. Read the AIM.



"BT" > wrote in message
...
| if you are making position reports
| do you not then have flight following?
| BT
|
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| ...
| > I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position
reports if you
| > are flying VFR over long distances without flight
following. To whom
| > do you report your position, and what information should
it include?
| > Which positions do you report and how often?
| >
| > --
| > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Although VFR position
> reports are usually given directly to FSS Radio on one of
> the frequencies publish on the sectional chart or in the
> AFD, you can give a VFR position report to ATC even if you
> are not in radar contact, just call Center [call sign] VFR
> position report. They will be able to record the report and
> are happy to do so, particularly in remote areas.

This is good to know. I thought only FSS was willing to take position
reports, and that you had to request flight following with ATC in
order to have them record your position.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Scott Post" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>Scott Post writes:
>>
>>> You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?
>>
>>Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
>>if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
>>requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
>>when flying over long distances, don't you?
>
> Surely you aren't planning to make position reports in your game?

I can't believe that this idiot is so clueless. (Not Scott)

Would someone with a good book that covers about everything in today's flying,
PLEASE send it to him.

I'll even kick in to buy one, if it would stop all of these stupid questions.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> if you are making position reports
> do you not then have flight following?

No, they are two different things. Normally you have one or the
other. If you have flight following, ATC has you on radar, and they
don't need position reports, as they know exactly where you are. If
you don't have flight following (because you haven't requested it, or
ATC has refused it, or you are not visible on radar), you can make
periodic position reports, so that people know where you are, in case
you crash.

From what I understand, you try to report to a FSS if you are making
position reports, but I'm not sure of the other details.

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

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

"Morgans" > writes:
> "Scott Post" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>Scott Post writes:
> >>
> >>> You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?
> >>
> >>Yes, just as you surely realize that making position reports aids S&R
> >>if you should happen to go down for any reason (if you have not
> >>requested flight following from ATC). You do make position reports
> >>when flying over long distances, don't you?
> >
> > Surely you aren't planning to make position reports in your game?
>
> I can't believe that this idiot is so clueless. (Not Scott)
>
> Would someone with a good book that covers about everything in today's flying,
> PLEASE send it to him.
>
> I'll even kick in to buy one, if it would stop all of these stupid questions.

A few years ago, when I was still in grad school, I picked up an old
Jeppesen private pilot textbook on eBay for $5. If Mxsmanic can't
afford that, then I am not sure how he feeds himself.

If we are talking about something that cheap, hell, I'll chip in too.

Chris

[Morgans[_2_]]

> Yes. Most of the time they don't, though.

Jay, are you ready to admit defeat, and cut MX loose, yet?

I'm just wondering. I think you might be a pretty good barometer of the others
in the group that are still answering his questions.

I know you did support him (and still may) but I sure wish we would do like the
simulator group, and start shutting him out.

He will never be a positive contribution to this group, or to general aviation.
--
Jim in NC

[BT]

I agree Jim... but Mxs is a non pilot..
it is a matter of semantics..

BT

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Not necessarily. Read the AIM.
>
>
>
> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
> | if you are making position reports
> | do you not then have flight following?
> | BT
> |
> | "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position
> reports if you
> | > are flying VFR over long distances without flight
> following. To whom
> | > do you report your position, and what information should
> it include?
> | > Which positions do you report and how often?
> | >
> | > --
> | > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> |
> |
>
>

[BT]

ok.. so once again the non pilot asking so many questions knows better than
30yr multi thousand hour pilots.

I fully understand the "radar flight following", but I can make position
reports to FSS and they will know where to begin looking for me (between my
last report and my intended destination), so they would have a "flight
following paper trail" of where I have been, even if it is not real time
radar.

From what you tend to know or have about flight following or position
reporting, that same book will (should) have the format for position
reporting.

Oh, while you've got them on the line, give them a pilot report.

BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> if you are making position reports
>> do you not then have flight following?
>
> No, they are two different things. Normally you have one or the
> other. If you have flight following, ATC has you on radar, and they
> don't need position reports, as they know exactly where you are. If
> you don't have flight following (because you haven't requested it, or
> ATC has refused it, or you are not visible on radar), you can make
> periodic position reports, so that people know where you are, in case
> you crash.
>
> From what I understand, you try to report to a FSS if you are making
> position reports, but I'm not sure of the other details.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> Although VFR position
>> reports are usually given directly to FSS Radio on one of
>> the frequencies publish on the sectional chart or in the
>> AFD, you can give a VFR position report to ATC even if you
>> are not in radar contact, just call Center [call sign] VFR
>> position report. They will be able to record the report and
>> are happy to do so, particularly in remote areas.
>
> This is good to know. I thought only FSS was willing to take position
> reports, and that you had to request flight following with ATC in
> order to have them record your position.
>

It's "on the tape", that way, and in the event of an overdue aircraft, all
records along the flight path are checked for contact with the missing
aircraft. The ATC if he has time may even hit the hotline to the local FSS
and pass the information.

B

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

How did the sim group shut him out? Please share it with the rest of us so
we can do the same.

Actually I'm going to France next summer- perhaps I should look him up and
give him a stack of old charts and books. Besides, I've never seen a real
live troll before.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> From what you tend to know or have about flight following or position
> reporting, that same book will (should) have the format for position
> reporting.

I've been looking for the format, but I haven't found it thus far.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> How did the sim group shut him out? Please share it with the rest of us so
> we can do the same.
>
> Actually I'm going to France next summer- perhaps I should look him up and
> give him a stack of old charts and books. Besides, I've never seen a real
> live troll before.


At least you'll know where to find him... he lives under the bridge.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Macklin]

I've stopped posting answers for him, but do to help the
real student pilots out there.



"BT" > wrote in message
...
|I agree Jim... but Mxs is a non pilot..
| it is a matter of semantics..
|
| BT
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Not necessarily. Read the AIM.
| >
| >
| >
| > "BT" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | if you are making position reports
| > | do you not then have flight following?
| > | BT
| > |
| > | "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| > | ...
| > | > I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for
position
| > reports if you
| > | > are flying VFR over long distances without flight
| > following. To whom
| > | > do you report your position, and what information
should
| > it include?
| > | > Which positions do you report and how often?
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> I've stopped posting answers for him, but do to help the
> real student pilots out there.

Hopefully others will follow so the noise level will go down. I have been
suggesting this for the past month.

I sure am doing my best not to respond *smile*.

Ignore him and he should go away once everybody does not respond to his
nonsensible replies.

Peer pressure can do wonders in this case by virtual of silence or no
replies.

Allen

[randall g]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:11:57 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:
>
>> I've stopped posting answers for him, but do to help the
>> real student pilots out there.
>
>Hopefully others will follow so the noise level will go down. I have been
>suggesting this for the past month.
>
>I sure am doing my best not to respond *smile*.
>
>Ignore him and he should go away once everybody does not respond to his
>nonsensible replies.
>
>Peer pressure can do wonders in this case by virtual of silence or no
>replies.
>
>Allen


What's the big deal? I have learned a lot from the threads he started.





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

[BT]

AIM 5-1-4 g. With Examples

For you, that would be the Airman's Information Manual, Chapter 5 Air
Traffic Prcedures, Section 1 Flight Plans, Part 4 VFR Flight Plan - VFR
Flights, paragraph g. Position Reporting. Example 1 and Example 2

BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> From what you tend to know or have about flight following or position
>> reporting, that same book will (should) have the format for position
>> reporting.
>
> I've been looking for the format, but I haven't found it thus far.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andreas Tschoeke]

randall g schrieb:

>
> What's the big deal? I have learned a lot from the threads he started.
>

I´m also only a disgusting armchair 'pilot', and I wouldn´t dare to
post any question about real life flying in this highly sophisticated
group, but: Amen to the above statement!

Andreas

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Humonguous ball of flame extending hundreds of feet
> into the air.
>

Oh, yeah. Sorry, I forgot.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> if it would stop all of these stupid questions.
>

It wouldn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony]

On Nov 21, 4:04 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Morgans,
>
> > if it would stop all of these stupid questions.It wouldn't.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In the professional literature -- peer reviewed journals -- score is
kept by the number of times one's paper is cited. Using that criteria,
mxsmanic would be one of the most respected authors.

I would submit the notions that's
1: why he posts the questions he does,
2: the difference between peer reviewed (or at least moderated)
documents and newsgroups.

The signal to noise ration in general isn't too bad.

Speaking of superior flying, check out this sequence of photos of a
Superhornet blowing a tire on landing.

http://s102164210.onlinehome.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=103388

or paste this in your google search window.

Superhornet Mishap at Pensacola Today - ARC Air Discussion Forums

[Kev]

Viperdoc wrote:
> How did the sim group shut him out? Please share it with the rest of us so
> we can do the same.

Will you complainers please just killfile him, and stop wasting
everyone else's time with your useles responses? At least his
postings are on topic and inoffensive in comparison.

I'm sure that, when in person and not hidden behind a fake name, you're
actually a friendly fellow and wouldn't act such.

Thanks.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

His postings are not on topic, and in fact quite offensive. Actually, my
first name is Jim, and although I consider myself a friendly fellow, I have
little tolerance for fools and people who argue simply for the sake of
arguing. He wouldn't last 30seconds in a conversation or disagreement with
real pilots.

However, my main computer is now being fixed, and he will duly be killfiled
on my backup immediately.

[Robet Coffey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I'm still not clear on the exact procedure for position reports if you
> are flying VFR over long distances without flight following. To whom
> do you report your position, and what information should it include?
> Which positions do you report and how often?
>
Sometimes when flying near untowered airports I will report my position
relative to the airfield on the CTAF. If by some chance (rare) I am near
the pattern altitude when passing by I think it a good idea to advise
inbound & traffic in the pattern.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> Some how your thought on my flying skills concern me not in the least.
>
>
>>> I saw this article the other day and thought about you.
>>> http://flighttraining.aopa.org/members/student_pilot/maneuvers/articles/3582.cfm
>>
>> Since I'm not a member, there's no point in giving me a link.
>>
>
> Sorry

He should get a simulated subscription to AOPA.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon writes:
>
>> <Shrug> There are a lot of people that seem to be involved in aviation
>> simulation. There's even this "network" of them where some play pilot
>> while others play controller. They actually do talk to one another.
>>
>> Most of them are harmless. Some are going to become pilots; others will
>> remain forever pretenders.
>
> And many of them are already pilots. Simulation is dramatically
> cheaper and simpler than actual flight, and most pilots can afford to
> fly only a few hours per month (or year), unless they do it for a
> living.
>

You are right there are many real pilots that use sim and that inhabit the
flight sim newsgroups. Why don't you head back over there and leave us
alone?

[Jim Macklin]

Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little toward
S&R. It allows ATC to advise IFR traffic that there is a
VFR aircraft in their area at some unconfirmed altitude.
Unless the aircraft contacts ATC and gets a discrete squawk
code, tracking of the aircraft will be a remote S&R assist.

VFR aircraft flying away from populated areas, a requirement
in Canada, should file a VFR flight plan because that will
trigger a S&R if the aircraft becomes over-due. Understand,
that unless you make a radio report of trouble or have a
working ELT, S&R begins with a communications search.
Actually looking in the wide open spaces may not begin for
24 hours after the plane is over due.

That is reasons for enhanced services such as flight
following, and special hazardous area reporting over water
and mountains.

Talk to people on the radio, that's what the radio is for.



"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
in message
...
| "Kev" > wrote:
|
| >Will you complainers please just killfile him, and stop
wasting
| >everyone else's time with your useles responses?
|
| I completely agree - if you don't want to answer his
| questions - then don't. He asked a question about
position
| reporting. It's a valid question and a good topic for
| discussion. It's the type of question a student who had
| studied lots of books, but had not yet done much flying
| would ask. It's exactly the type of question that seldom
| gets asked because it's advanced enough that beginners
don't
| know to ask it, and by the time the student pilot might
ask
| it, he already knows about flight plans and transponders,
so
| doesn't.
|
| The AIM recommends VFR position reports, yet few use them.
| Why? If you are going cross country in a transponderless
| Champ, then filing a VFR flight plan and using position
| reports is a good idea.
|
| Here's what the AIM says:
| "To maintain IFR proficiency, pilots are urged to
| practice IFR procedures whenever possible, even when
| operating VFR. Some suggested practices include:.... Make
| accurate and frequent position reports to the FSSs along
| your route of flight."
| ...
| "Although position reports are not required for VFR
| flight plans, periodic reports to FAA FSSs along the route
| are good practice. Such contacts permit significant
| information to be passed to the transiting aircraft and
also
| serve to check the progress of the flight should it be
| necessary for any reason to locate the aircraft."
|
| --
| Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden
meeting of stone and metal.
|
| - Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.'

[Steve Foley]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little toward
> S&R.

Isn't that how they located JFK Jr's plane?

It's better to squawk 1200 than not squawk.

> Talk to people on the radio, that's what the radio is for.

Yup.

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, are you ready to admit defeat, and cut MX loose, yet?
>
> I'm just wondering. I think you might be a pretty good barometer of the others
> in the group that are still answering his questions.

Well, Jim, I find MX much less aggravating then some of the regular
posters here. Even when he disagrees, at least he keeps a civil tongue
in his head, which is more than I can say for many of the "real" pilots
who grace this group with their presence.

I don't pretend to understand why some of you guys get so worked up
about his questions -- there's nothing wrong with asking about VFR
position reporting. I'll bet there are 400 pilot wannabee lurkers who
read his posts with relish, glad that he's got the balls to ask the
"stupid questions" that no one else will ask, for fear of getting
verbally castrated.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

If you have a transponder you are required to squawk and
also use Mode C [altitude] if you have that too. It is
required in some airspace, such as the NYC area.

But you need a flight plan to trigger S&R or be talking to
Radio.

JFK jr was probably using...
Hazardous Area Reporting Service

4-1-20. Hazardous Area Reporting Service

a. Selected FSSs provide flight monitoring where
regularly traveled VFR routes cross large bodies of water,
swamps, and mountains. This service is provided for the
purpose of expeditiously alerting Search and Rescue
facilities when required.
(See FIG 4-1-3.)

1. When requesting the service either in person, by
telephone or by radio, pilots should be prepared to give the
following information: type of aircraft, altitude, indicated
airspeed, present position, route of flight, heading.

2. Radio contacts are desired at least every 10
minutes. If contact is lost for more than 15 minutes, Search
and Rescue will be alerted. Pilots are responsible for
canceling their request for service when they are outside
the service area boundary. Pilots experiencing two-way radio
failure are expected to land as soon as practicable and
cancel their request for the service. FIG 4-1-3 depicts the
areas and the FSS facilities involved in this program.

b. Long Island Sound Reporting Service.

The New York and Bridgeport AFSSs provide Long Island
Sound Reporting service on request for aircraft traversing
Long Island Sound.

1. When requesting the service, pilots should ask for
SOUND REPORTING SERVICE and should be prepared to provide
the following appropriate information:

(a) Type and color of aircraft;

(b) The specific route and altitude across the sound
including the shore crossing point;

(c) The overwater crossing time;

(d) Number of persons on board; and

(e) True air speed.

2. Radio contacts are desired at least every 10
minutes; however, for flights of shorter duration a midsound
report is requested. If contact is lost for more than 15
minutes Search and Rescue will be alerted. Pilots are
responsible for canceling their request for the Long Island
Sound Reporting Service when outside the service area
boundary. Aircraft experiencing radio failure will be
expected to land as soon as practicable and cancel their
request for the service.

3. Communications. Primary communications - pilots are
to transmit on 122.1 MHz and listen on one of the following
VOR frequencies:

(a) New York AFSS Controls:

(1) Hampton RCO (FSS transmits and receives on 122.6
MHz).

(2) Calverton VOR (FSS transmits on 117.2 and receives
on standard FSS frequencies).

(3) Kennedy VORTAC (FSS transmits on 115.9 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

(b) Bridgeport AFSS Controls:

(1) Madison VORTAC (FSS transmits on 110.4 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

(2) Groton VOR (FSS transmits on 110.85 and receives
on 122.1 MHz).

(3) Bridgeport VOR (FSS transmits on 108.8 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

c. Block Island Reporting Service.

Within the Long Island Reporting Service, the New York
FSS also provides an additional service for aircraft
operating between Montauk Point and Block Island. When
requesting this service, pilots should ask for BLOCK ISLAND
REPORTING SERVICE and should be prepared to provide the same
flight information as required for the Long Island Sound
Reporting Service.

1. A minimum of three position reports are mandatory
for this service; these are:

(a) Reporting leaving either Montauk Point or Block
Island.

(b) Midway report.

(c) Report when over either Montauk Point or Block
Island. At this time, the overwater service is canceled.

2. Communications. Pilots are to transmit and receive
on 122.6 MHz.

NOTE-
Pilots are advised that 122.6 MHz is a remote receiver
located at the Hampton VORTAC site and designed to provide
radio coverage between Hampton and Block Island. Flights
proceeding beyond Block Island may contact the Bridgeport
AFSS by transmitting on 122.1 MHz and listening on Groton
VOR frequency 110.85 MHz.

d. Cape Cod and Islands Radar Overwater Flight
Following.

In addition to normal VFR radar advisory services,
traffic permitting, Cape Approach Control provides a radar
overwater flight following service for aircraft traversing
the Cape Cod and adjacent Island area. Pilots desiring this
service may contact Cape RAPCON on 118.2 MHz.

1. Pilots requesting this service should be prepared
to give the following information:

(a) Type and color of aircraft;

(b) Altitude;

(c) Position and heading;

(d) Route of flight; and

(e) True airspeed.

2. For best radar coverage, pilots are encouraged to
fly at 1,500 feet MSL or above.

3. Pilots are responsible for canceling their request
for overwater flight following when they are over the
mainland and/or outside the service area boundary.

e. Lake Reporting Service.

Cleveland and Lansing AFSSs provide Lake Reporting
Service on request for aircraft traversing the western half
of Lake Erie; Green Bay, Kankakee, Lansing, and Terre Haute
AFSSs provide Lake Reporting Service on request for aircraft
traversing Lake Michigan.

1. When requesting the service, pilots should ask for
LAKE REPORTING SERVICE.

2. Pilots not on a VFR flight plan should be prepared
to provide all information that is normally provided for a
complete VFR flight plan.

3. Pilots already on a VFR flight plan should be
prepared to provide the following information:

(a) Aircraft or flight identification.

(b) Type of aircraft.

(c) Near-shore crossing point or last fix before
crossing.

(d) Proposed time over near-shore crossing point or
last fix before crossing.

(e) Proposed altitude.

(f) Proposed route of flight.

(g) Estimated time over water.

(h) Next landing point.

(i) AFSS/FSS having complete VFR flight plan
information.

4. Radio contacts must not exceed 10 minutes when
pilots fly at an altitude that affords continuous
communications. If radio contact is lost for more than 15
minutes (5 minutes after a scheduled reporting time), Search
and Rescue (SAR) will be alerted.

5. The estimated time for crossing the far shore will
be the scheduled reporting time for aircraft that fly at an
altitude that does not afford continuous communication
coverage while crossing the lake. If radio contact is not
established within 5 minutes of that time, SAR will be
alerted.

6. Pilots are responsible for canceling their request
for Lake Reporting Service when outside the service area
boundary. Aircraft experiencing radio failure will be
expected to land as soon as practicable and cancel their
Lake Reporting Service flight plan.

7. Communications. Primary communications - Pilots
should communicate with the following facilities on the
indicated frequencies:

(a) Cleveland AFSS Controls:

(1) Cleveland RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.35 or 122.55 MHz).

(2) Sandusky VOR (FSS transmits on 109.2 and receives
on 122.1 MHz).

(b) Green Bay AFSS Controls:

(1) Escanaba VORTAC (FSS transmits on 110.8 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

(2) Green Bay RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.55 MHz).

(3) Manistique RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.25 MHz).

(4) Manitowoc VOR (FSS transmits on 111.0 and receives
on 122.1 MHz).

(5) Menominee VOR (FSS transmits on 109.6 and receives
on 122.1 MHz).

(6) Milwaukee RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.65 MHz).

(7) Falls VOR (FSS transmits on 110.0 and receives on
122.1 MHz).

(c) Kankakee AFSS Controls:

(1) Chicago Heights VORTAC (FSS transmits on 114.2 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

(2) Meigs RCO (FSS transmits and receives on 122.15
MHz).

(3) Waukegan RCO (FSS transmits and receives on 122.55
MHz).

(d) Lansing AFSS Controls:

(1) Lake Erie. Detroit City RCO (FSS transmits and
receives on 122.55 MHz).

(2) Lake Michigan:

[d] Keeler VORTAC (FSS transmits on 116.6 and receives
on 122.1 MHz).

[e] Ludington RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.45 MHz).

[f] Manistee VORTAC (FSS transmits on 111.4 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

[g] Muskegon RCO (FSS transmits and receives on 122.5
MHz).

[h] Pellston RCO (FSS transmits and receives on 122.3
MHz).

[i] Pullman VORTAC (FSS transmits on 112.1 and
receives on 122.1 MHz).

[j] Traverse City RCO (FSS transmits and receives on
122.65 MHz).

(e) Terre Haute AFSS Controls. South Bend RCO (FSS
transmits and receives on 122.6 MHz).

f. Everglades Reporting Service.

This service is offered by Miami Automated
International Flight Service Station (MIA AIFSS), in extreme
southern Florida. The service is provided to aircraft
crossing the Florida Everglades, between Lee County (Ft.
Myers, FL) VORTAC (RSW) on the northwest side, and Dolphin
(Miami, FL) VOR (DHP) on the southeast side.

1. The pilot must request the service from Miami
AIFSS.

2. MIA AIFSS frequency information, 122.2, 122.3, and
122.65.

3. The pilot must file a VFR flight plan with the
remark: ERS.

4. The pilot must maintain 2000 feet of altitude.

5. The pilot must make position reports every ten (10)
minutes. SAR begins fifteen (15) minutes after position
report is not made on time.

6. The pilot is expected to land as soon as is
practical, in the event of two-way radio failure, and advise
MIA AIFSS that the service is terminated.

7. The pilot must notify Miami AIFSS when the flight
plan is cancelled or the service is suspended.




"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:%JE8h.2135$gJ1.1662@trndny09...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little
toward
| > S&R.
|
| Isn't that how they located JFK Jr's plane?
|
| It's better to squawk 1200 than not squawk.
|
| > Talk to people on the radio, that's what the radio is
for.
|
| Yup.
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Agreed, the service is there to save pilots and passenger
lives.


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote
in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| >Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little
toward
| >S&R.
|
| Jim, was this in response to me? If so, you misunderstood
| me. My comment about the lack of a transponder is that
it's
| hard to get flight following without one - not that having
| one and squawking 1200 is some kind of substitute for FF.
| Because FF is often not available when you are /X, one
| should be familiar with and use the other tools, like
flight
| plans, position reports, special hazardous area reporting
| services, etc. that are available with only a radio.
|
| --
| Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden
meeting of stone and metal.
|
| - Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.'

[Steve Foley]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...

I don't think (but I have no actual knowledge - haven't even checked the
NTSB site) that Jr used this. From what I recall, his family reported the
plane was overdue.

Squawking didn't trigger S&R, but it helped locate the wreckage.

> 2.
> If contact is lost for more than 15 minutes, Search
> and Rescue will be alerted.

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> AIM 5-1-4 g. With Examples

Found it, thank you. The examples aren't very highly codified;
perhaps there is no rigid format.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You are right there are many real pilots that use sim and that inhabit the
> flight sim newsgroups. Why don't you head back over there and leave us
> alone?

Why do you waste so much time on personal attacks if you dislike me?
Why not just killfile me and be done with it? I'm refractory to
personal attacks, so they will never have any effect on me.

I'm puzzled by people who claim to hate me and yet waste hundreds or
thousands of posts on tirades against me. What's the _real_
motivation for this?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> He wouldn't last 30seconds in a conversation or disagreement with
> real pilots.

I've lasted much longer here; am I not communicating with real pilots,
then?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I don't think (but I have no actual knowledge - haven't even checked the
> NTSB site) that Jr used this. From what I recall, his family reported the
> plane was overdue.

JFK Jr. did not file a flight plan on his final flight. His last
communication with ATC was at the time of his take-off from Essex
County Airport. There was no contact with FSS. No weather briefings
were requested by the accident pilot.

A radar target squawking VFR and matching the circumstances of the
accident aircraft was observed at 2049:59 on the night of the
accident. It made many erratic movements. A TCAS warning in a
commercial airliner also correlates with the circumstances of the
accident flight.

The full narrative is available at

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1

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

[Mxsmanic]

Robet Coffey writes:

> Sometimes when flying near untowered airports I will report my position
> relative to the airfield on the CTAF. If by some chance (rare) I am near
> the pattern altitude when passing by I think it a good idea to advise
> inbound & traffic in the pattern.

That is my belief as well. I think it's not really possible to
provide too much information to other pilots, so unless the frequency
is bursting with traffic (highly unlikely), the more information one
provides, the better, for both S&R and for other pilots who may be
nearby with no other way of knowing that you're in the area.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You are right there are many real pilots that use sim and that inhabit
>> the
>> flight sim newsgroups. Why don't you head back over there and leave us
>> alone?
>
> Why do you waste so much time on personal attacks if you dislike me?
> Why not just killfile me and be done with it? I'm refractory to
> personal attacks, so they will never have any effect on me.
>
> I'm puzzled by people who claim to hate me and yet waste hundreds or
> thousands of posts on tirades against me. What's the _real_
> motivation for this?
>

I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I can't kill file all the responses
to your posts. If you would just stop arguing with everybody that answers
your questions I wouldn't have a problem. If you don't like or believe an
answer let those that do know something about the subject respond and trust
me they will if it is even a little wrong.

The way this and any forum like it should work is person A who doesn't have
information asks a question and then persons B, who knows the answer,
responds. A can then ask a follow-up question if needed. If person B was
wrong then C, D and E will chime in and get to the correct answer.

But when you ask a question then turn around and argue with damn near
everybody that answers you blow the signal to noise ratio all to hell. And
don't get me wrong. You have asked some good questions it is the way your
respond that ****es me and many others off.

Finally, there is a reason that there are thousands of newsgroups. Each
newsgroup is for a particular subject and continually remind us that you
have no interest in aviation just in flight sims.

[Jim Stewart]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>
>>I like to keep safety on my side.
>>
>
>
> Well, you're sitting in a room. That should do it, no reporting
> necessary.

I believe he should report his position to his
parents on an hourly basis.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Robet Coffey writes:
>
>> Sometimes when flying near untowered airports I will report my
>> position relative to the airfield on the CTAF. If by some chance
>> (rare) I am near the pattern altitude when passing by I think it
>> a good idea to advise inbound & traffic in the pattern.
>
> That is my belief as well. I think it's not really possible to
> provide too much information to other pilots, so unless the frequency
> is bursting with traffic (highly unlikely), the more information one
> provides, the better, for both S&R and for other pilots who may be
> nearby with no other way of knowing that you're in the area.
>
I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with traffic",
but it is not at all unusual for it to be hard to get a word in edgewise
in the vicinity of an airport. If it isn't critical, I keep off the air.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> But when you ask a question then turn around and argue with damn near
> everybody that answers you blow the signal to noise ratio all to hell.

I provide signal, not noise. I have no control over what others
provide.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with traffic" ...

In AI simulation, the level of traffic is configurable. At high
levels, and in high-traffic areas, the frequencies are continuously
busy.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> But when you ask a question then turn around and argue with damn near
>> everybody that answers you blow the signal to noise ratio all to hell.
>
> I provide signal, not noise. I have no control over what others
> provide.
>

Only your original questions could be considered signal. Your uninformed
responses to answers are 100% noise.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with
>> traffic" ...
>
> In AI simulation, the level of traffic is configurable. At high
> levels, and in high-traffic areas, the frequencies are continuously
> busy.
>
So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?

Neil

[Jim Macklin]

The NTSB report states that JFK jr. had no contact with ATC
or radio after departing the local control.

He did not avail the services which were available. That
did not cause the accident, but it does indicate that the
CFIs he used did not teach the use of the Long Island Sound
reporting service.



"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:JDG8h.5540$d42.2658@trndny07...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
|
| I don't think (but I have no actual knowledge - haven't
even checked the
| NTSB site) that Jr used this. From what I recall, his
family reported the
| plane was overdue.
|
| Squawking didn't trigger S&R, but it helped locate the
wreckage.
|
| > 2.
| > If contact is lost for more than 15 minutes,
Search
| > and Rescue will be alerted.
|
|

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The NTSB report states that JFK jr. had no contact with ATC
> or radio after departing the local control.
>
> He did not avail the services which were available. That
> did not cause the accident, but it does indicate that the
> CFIs he used did not teach the use of the Long Island Sound
> reporting service.
>
>

It indicates that he didn't use it not that the CFIs didn't teach it. From
the outcome of the flight I'd say there were probably several things the
CFIs taught him that he either forgot or ignored.

[randall g]

On 20 Nov 2006 23:58:38 -0800, "Andreas Tschoeke" >
wrote:

>
>randall g schrieb:
>
>>
>> What's the big deal? I have learned a lot from the threads he started.
>>
>
>I´m also only a disgusting armchair 'pilot', and I wouldn´t dare to
>post any question about real life flying in this highly sophisticated
>group, but: Amen to the above statement!
>
>Andreas



I hope some of the pilots around here give your comments some serious
thought.




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

[Dallas]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:17:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> the last time I visited the Seattle AFSS

How does one locate a local FSS? I'd like to visit one.

--
>>> Dallas <<<

[Jay Beckman]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:17:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> the last time I visited the Seattle AFSS
>
> How does one locate a local FSS? I'd like to visit one.
>
> --
>>>> Dallas <<<

Start Here:

http://www.afss.com/

Jay B

[A Lieberma]

randall g > wrote in
:

> On 20 Nov 2006 23:58:38 -0800, "Andreas Tschoeke" >
> wrote:

>>I´m also only a disgusting armchair 'pilot', and I wouldn´t dare to
>>post any question about real life flying in this highly sophisticated
>>group, but: Amen to the above statement!
>>
>>Andreas
>
> I hope some of the pilots around here give your comments some serious
> thought.

I HOPE NOT.

Y'all need to not only read the questions this guy is raising, but the
way he is responding to REAL LIFE answers to his questions and making it
like sim flight is the same. It's not in any manner shape or form. This
is what is raising my dander and other pilots as well.

I mean get real, VFR position reporting in a game of MSFS? Read his
responses and the way they are written, you would think he was near check
ride time. Not only that, he is questioning things he has never
experienced. It's one thing to question something with a question but
this guy is challenging pilots responses based on MSFS experiences. The
two just ain't the same, no manner, shape or form.

I don't think there is a fellow pilot out here who would not go out of
their way to help a fellow student pilot or another pilot (myself
included).

There is nothing wrong with armchair flying, nothing wrong with non
pilots posting questions, but to act like spatial disorientation is a
life or death situation in a MSFS world is wrong (another thread this
goofball posted in).

To make his responses seem like he is just about to take a check ride in
a real plane is wrong when in reality he is playing a game.

Again, don't hesitate to post questions even if you never touched a GA
plane, just don't act like playing MSFS is like a real plane or real
world flying.

It's not and will never be.

Allen

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Andreas Tschoeke" > wrote in message
oups.com...

randall g schrieb:

>
> What's the big deal? I have learned a lot from the threads he started.
>

I´m also only a disgusting armchair 'pilot', and I wouldn´t dare to
post any question about real life flying in this highly sophisticated
group, but: Amen to the above statement!

Andreas


Hi Andreas!
I think a lot of the agro towards Mxsmanic is due to the fact that he
doesn't even try to research the answers himself. he just expects others to
spoon feed him the answers. (forgetting for a moment that he likes to argue
points with those who do take the time to help him!) If he came with a
question that suggested that he had actually attempted to find his own
answer to, but he just wanted clarification on, he would have less people
ignoring him.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Dudley Henriques]

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

> It indicates that he didn't use it not that the CFIs didn't teach it. From
> the outcome of the flight I'd say there were probably several things the
> CFIs taught him that he either forgot or ignored.

Actually, I've had a problem with the CFI side of the Kennedy equation since
the day of the accident .
I know the area of the crash very well having flown up there myself many
times .
I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under certain
weather conditions and at certain times of the day. I also wasn't at all
satisfied with his inability to avoid the loss of control situation that
apparently resulted in the loss of the airplane and its occupants both on
the planning end and during the operational end directly prior to the crash.
This accident seemed literally riddled with contributing causes as indeed is
the situation in many aircraft accidents.
Not that in my opinion it was the single contributing cause, but I'll always
have an unanswered question in my mind about the quality of Kennedy's flight
instruction during his training.
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:17:20 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> They all work in the same building and get paid from the same pool of
> money, but the last time I visited the Seattle AFSS there was one person
> at the Flight Watch position whose sole responsibility it was to answer
> queries about the weather on 122.0...s/he worked no other frequency. And
> his scope did not have a flight plan screen, as did the other scopes in
> the room.
>

That's informative to me (ie. I didn't know this {8^), but I still don't
know why the separation of the two services?

Thanks...
- Andrew

[Jose[_1_]]

> but it does indicate that the
> CFIs he used did not teach the use of the Long Island Sound
> reporting service.

I've never heard of it, and I fly here all the time. I know of such a
service in Hawaii, but not here. Tell me more.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Jay, are you ready to admit defeat, and cut MX loose, yet?
>>
>> I'm just wondering. I think you might be a pretty good barometer of the
>> others
>> in the group that are still answering his questions.
>
> Well, Jim, I find MX much less aggravating then some of the regular
> posters here. Even when he disagrees, at least he keeps a civil tongue
> in his head, which is more than I can say for many of the "real" pilots
> who grace this group with their presence.
>
> I don't pretend to understand why some of you guys get so worked up
> about his questions -- there's nothing wrong with asking about VFR
> position reporting. I'll bet there are 400 pilot wannabee lurkers who
> read his posts with relish, glad that he's got the balls to ask the
> "stupid questions" that no one else will ask, for fear of getting
> verbally castrated.

I see. You and many others don't mind his arguing, or his seemingly inability
to look up the simplest questions, or to read a book. That says nothing about
his probable diagnosable psychoses of a few different types, and thinking he is
actually traveling by simulator.

Oh well. Different strokes, and all that.

Myself, I don't understand your view of him, as much as you don't understand my
(and other's) annoyance.

Back to some serious semi-lurking. I just can't waste my time with responses to
him, from other people.
--
Jim in NC

[Tony]

Re JFK Jr's last flight: when you look at the prelim report you'll
notice he has had more dual time instruction than for example naval
pilots have total time when they're landing on carriers!

He was pretty well along on his instrument rating as well.

He was flying with a foot still not healed from a hang gliding
accident, and it seems fairly clear he turned off the auto pilot to
start down and pulled himself into a spiral. I think radar shows it was
less than a minute from 5500 feet to impact.

A book written about the event said his family didn't ever want to fly
with him



On Nov 21, 5:56 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in ...
>
> > It indicates that he didn't use it not that the CFIs didn't teach it. From
> > the outcome of the flight I'd say there were probably several things the
> > CFIs taught him that he either forgot or ignored.Actually, I've had a problem with the CFI side of the Kennedy equation since
> the day of the accident .
> I know the area of the crash very well having flown up there myself many
> times .
> I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
> should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under certain
> weather conditions and at certain times of the day. I also wasn't at all
> satisfied with his inability to avoid the loss of control situation that
> apparently resulted in the loss of the airplane and its occupants both on
> the planning end and during the operational end directly prior to the crash.
> This accident seemed literally riddled with contributing causes as indeed is
> the situation in many aircraft accidents.
> Not that in my opinion it was the single contributing cause, but I'll always
> have an unanswered question in my mind about the quality of Kennedy's flight
> instruction during his training.
> Dudley Henriques

[Robert Chambers]

Nobody uses the long island reporting service. You ask for and get
flight following, it's much more real-time than the LIRS which the FSS
provides.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The NTSB report states that JFK jr. had no contact with ATC
> or radio after departing the local control.
>
> He did not avail the services which were available. That
> did not cause the accident, but it does indicate that the
> CFIs he used did not teach the use of the Long Island Sound
> reporting service.
>
>
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:JDG8h.5540$d42.2658@trndny07...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> |
> | I don't think (but I have no actual knowledge - haven't
> even checked the
> | NTSB site) that Jr used this. From what I recall, his
> family reported the
> | plane was overdue.
> |
> | Squawking didn't trigger S&R, but it helped locate the
> wreckage.
> |
> | > 2.
> | > If contact is lost for more than 15 minutes,
> Search
> | > and Rescue will be alerted.
> |
> |
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

I've always believed that what nailed Kennedy was not his lack of
experience, which was ok at 310 hours, but his known problem with
multi-tasking. This coupled with spatial disorientation can be, and in my
opinion indeed was a killer.
I can only speculate on how deeply into his problem with cockpit
multi-tasking and overload his instructors at Flight Safety managed to go,
but I do understand he had these issues all through
his training.
Its very difficult for instructors when dealing in these areas. You
certainly can ascertain the problem exists with a student, and you can deal
with it, but in the end analysis, its extremely difficult if not impossible
for an instructor to predict how a student will react somewhere down the
line when suddenly faced with an actual multi-task overload.
I only have questions on this issue as pertains to the Kennedy accident, not
accusations. Its quite possible his instructors did all they could to solve
his issues, but this leaves me with the fact that regardless of the
instructor's role, I'm fairly well convinced that what killed Kennedy was
his poor preflight planning putting him in conditions and at a time of day
that he wasn't prepared to handle coupled with his on board reaction to an
actual spatial disorientation that overloaded him to the point that he
reacted contrary to his instrument training not shallowing the bank before
his pitch correction thus deepening his spiral.
Who knows actually what really happened? For all we know, the right front
seat pax might have had an object in their lap that interfered with his
effort to shallow the bank. No one will ever REALLY know. That's why we
always get the "probable cause".
Anyway, I for one will always have unanswered questions about the level the
instructor accepted somewhere along his learning curve from Kennedy as
acceptable performance concerning what the instructor absolutely had to know
was a multi-tasking overload issue.
Its just the way I approach the flight training issue I guess. Everybody in
the business has their own way of looking at these things.
Dudley Henriques

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Re JFK Jr's last flight: when you look at the prelim report you'll
> notice he has had more dual time instruction than for example naval
> pilots have total time when they're landing on carriers!
>
> He was pretty well along on his instrument rating as well.
>
> He was flying with a foot still not healed from a hang gliding
> accident, and it seems fairly clear he turned off the auto pilot to
> start down and pulled himself into a spiral. I think radar shows it was
> less than a minute from 5500 feet to impact.
>
> A book written about the event said his family didn't ever want to fly
> with him
>
>
>
> On Nov 21, 5:56 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>> ...
>>
>> > It indicates that he didn't use it not that the CFIs didn't teach it.
>> > From
>> > the outcome of the flight I'd say there were probably several things
>> > the
>> > CFIs taught him that he either forgot or ignored.Actually, I've had a
>> > problem with the CFI side of the Kennedy equation since
>> the day of the accident .
>> I know the area of the crash very well having flown up there myself many
>> times .
>> I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
>> should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under
>> certain
>> weather conditions and at certain times of the day. I also wasn't at all
>> satisfied with his inability to avoid the loss of control situation that
>> apparently resulted in the loss of the airplane and its occupants both on
>> the planning end and during the operational end directly prior to the
>> crash.
>> This accident seemed literally riddled with contributing causes as indeed
>> is
>> the situation in many aircraft accidents.
>> Not that in my opinion it was the single contributing cause, but I'll
>> always
>> have an unanswered question in my mind about the quality of Kennedy's
>> flight
>> instruction during his training.
>> Dudley Henriques
>

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#4-1-20


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> but it does indicate that the
| > CFIs he used did not teach the use of the Long Island
Sound
| > reporting service.
|
| I've never heard of it, and I fly here all the time. I
know of such a
| service in Hawaii, but not here. Tell me more.
|
| Jose
| --
| "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing.
Unfortunately, nobody knows
| what they are." - (mike).
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[BT]

why does it need to be rigid? how much more rigid can you get?
This is me..
This is where I am..
This is where I am going..


what more do you need?
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BT writes:
>
>> AIM 5-1-4 g. With Examples
>
> Found it, thank you. The examples aren't very highly codified;
> perhaps there is no rigid format.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

Robert Chambers wrote:
> Nobody uses the long island reporting service. You ask for and get
> flight following, it's much more real-time than the LIRS which the FSS
> provides.

One note is that they don't always hear you when you take off from
Block Island. I left there one dark night to fly home via Montauk, and
the FSS didn't hear me until I was half-way across. If I did it
again, I'd circle to gain altitude before leaving the island and
crossing the water... for both radio and engine-glide range.

Kev

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> That says nothing about his probable diagnosable psychoses of a few
> different types, and thinking he is actually traveling by simulator.


I sometimes close my eyes and let music, or this time of year - all things
Autumn, "transport" me to an earlier time, and place.

For me, therefore --- transporters, and time travel, are both within my
grasp.


Montblack
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some time reserved with the Goddess of
Empathy :-)

[Kev]

A Lieberma wrote:
> I mean get real, VFR position reporting in a game of MSFS? [...]

Clearly you know very little about MSFS usage these days, at least when
enhanced with add-ons. If it really were just a game, you'd see it on
game consoles. But fortunately a lot of pilots helped work on it, and
it's a pretty good basic simulation. Add satellite photo imagery and
space shuttle radar terrain points, and it's even good for VFR nav
practice.

Many pilots use it for navigation and IFR practice. Perhaps you get to
fly in clouds all the time, but others get a bit rusty with their scan
and MSFS is good for that. (NOT seat of the pants flying.)

Other users, armchair fliers perhaps, often have others acting over the
net as air traffic controllers, etc. So yes, position reporting is
quite possible.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> A book written about the event said his family didn't ever want to fly
> with him

Somebody wrote a book about it?

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

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> but it does indicate that the CFIs he used did not teach the use of the
>> Long Island Sound reporting service.
>
> I've never heard of it, and I fly here all the time. I know of such a
> service in Hawaii, but not here. Tell me more.
>
> Jose

IIRC, there is also a reporting service for crossing Lake Michigan.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> why does it need to be rigid?

It doesn't have to be, but in information theory, the more rigid the
encoding, the greater than transfer of information. That's why the
phrasing of ATC communications is so highly conventionalized. That's
why METARs and TAFs have a highly specialized format.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
> wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?

They are highly unlikely outside of heavy traffic areas, both in real
life and in simulation.

However, as a general rule, simulation provides for broader control of
circumstances than real life provides, precisely so that extreme and
improbable situations can be simulated for practice. A commercial
pilot may fly for his entire career without experience a failure of
all engines at the same time, but it's very easy to simulate, which
makes it possible for him to practice and be prepared for such a
situation should it ever actually arise. That's one of the great
advantages of simulation.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:%JE8h.2135$gJ1.1662@trndny09...
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little toward
>> S&R.
>
> Isn't that how they located JFK Jr's plane?

At the bottom of the ocean? I think not.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BT writes:
>
>> why does it need to be rigid?
>
> It doesn't have to be, but in information theory, the more rigid the
> encoding, the greater than transfer of information. That's why the
> phrasing of ATC communications is so highly conventionalized. That's
> why METARs and TAFs have a highly specialized format.

I believe the transmission of weather information by use of abbreviated
METAR codes originated in the days of 10 character-per-second Teletypes (or
possibly even earlier). The ASR 33 Teletype (the model I'm personally
familiar with) could only print uppercase characters. At that slow rate of
printing and usingg such a limited character set, brevity was an asset.

I first learned to program in 1973 using Teletypes as input and output
device. A nice picture of an ASR 33 teletype is here:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch02s02.html

[A Lieberma]

"Kev" > wrote in news:1164170084.413504.14250
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> A Lieberma wrote:
>> I mean get real, VFR position reporting in a game of MSFS? [...]
>
> Clearly you know very little about MSFS usage these days, at least when
> enhanced with add-ons. If it really were just a game, you'd see it on
> game consoles.

If it looks like a game, talks like a game, I'd suspect it's a game even
by MSFS. http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

> Many pilots use it for navigation and IFR practice. Perhaps you get to
> fly in clouds all the time, but others get a bit rusty with their scan
> and MSFS is good for that. (NOT seat of the pants flying.)

Glad you added the last sentence..... All MSFS is good for is the scan
and IFR procedures. Doesn't replace the real deal IMC get the leans
feeling.

Quick Google will clearly show how I feel about sims and real flying, but
to save you looking it up, I see no problems with MSFS simulator as long
as it is used to compliment the real deal flying.

As stated in my prior post, it does not, will not, will never replace or
come close to simulating the physiology of flight, and that my friend is
what keeps us returning to the skies.

> Other users, armchair fliers perhaps, often have others acting over the
> net as air traffic controllers, etc. So yes, position reporting is
> quite possible.

Quite possible, but based on Mx's postings, sure doesn't sound like he is
doing this. All he is doing is trolling these newsgroups. READ HIS
RESPONSES arguing points he has NEVER experienced.

I only hope every pilot recognizes this and ignores his postings and
bring the noise level down.

Allen

[Robert Chambers]

If you're on BID, call PVD approach and get flight following, you can
talk them on the ground (RCO)120.1 which is a clearance delivery freq
but if you tell them you're headed over to Long Island if they don't
give you a squawk then and there at least they will expect you when you
do call them. PVD approach are about the nicest and most accommodating
approach controllers in the northeast.

Kev wrote:
> Robert Chambers wrote:
>
>>Nobody uses the long island reporting service. You ask for and get
>>flight following, it's much more real-time than the LIRS which the FSS
>>provides.
>
>
> One note is that they don't always hear you when you take off from
> Block Island. I left there one dark night to fly home via Montauk, and
> the FSS didn't hear me until I was half-way across. If I did it
> again, I'd circle to gain altitude before leaving the island and
> crossing the water... for both radio and engine-glide range.
>
> Kev
>

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote: <brevity snip>
> Scott Post writes:
>
> > You do realize that a radio isn't required for VFR flight, right?
>
> You do make position reports when flying over long distances, don't you?

L O L !
-----

- gpsman

[Andreas Tschoeke]

Crash Lander schrieb:

> I think a lot of the agro towards Mxsmanic is due to the fact that he
> doesn't even try to research the answers himself. he just expects others to
> spoon feed him the answers.

Hi Crash,

agreed; the manner in which he is posting and the justification of his
posts are quite questionable, but you cannot possibly deny that the
posts he started contain valuable information.

The signal to noise ratio people complain about would greatly diminish,
if those who dislike his 'personality' would simply start to ignore him
altogether, as has been said endlessly already. After all, most of the
'noise' in his threads consists of the contributions of peolple
discussing the pros and cons of his posts/questions which, admittedly,
has nothing to do with aviation, be it simulated or RL. This obviously
is also true for this very post ...

:-) Andreas

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
>> wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?
>
> They are highly unlikely outside of heavy traffic areas, both in real
> life and in simulation.
>
And, you know this, how?

In fact, radio chatter is sometimes *much worse* in low traffic areas. You
can be the only one in the vicinity, but still not be able to get a word
in edgewise. And, it isn't uncommon. Let's see if you can figure out why
that is.

This is a perfect example of what several others have already told you;
you are arguing from a position of total ignorance. If you don't know the
real answer, you can not make a valid argument. Chalk up all of your
responses of this nature as 100% noise.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andreas Tschoeke > posted:

> Crash Lander schrieb:
>
>> I think a lot of the agro towards Mxsmanic is due to the fact that he
>> doesn't even try to research the answers himself. he just expects
>> others to spoon feed him the answers.
>
> Hi Crash,
>
> agreed; the manner in which he is posting and the justification of his
> posts are quite questionable, but you cannot possibly deny that the
> posts he started contain valuable information.
>
> The signal to noise ratio people complain about would greatly
> diminish, if those who dislike his 'personality' would simply start
> to ignore him altogether, as has been said endlessly already. After
> all, most of the 'noise' in his threads consists of the contributions
> of peolple discussing the pros and cons of his posts/questions which,
> admittedly, has nothing to do with aviation, be it simulated or RL.
> This obviously is also true for this very post ...
>
> :-) Andreas
>
I disagree with this assessment. "Noise" is that which obfuscates the
"signal", making it difficult to determine the true message. In this
context, the "noise" is mostly from Mxsmanic's factually incorrect claims,
as the other posts and OT reponses may have little to do with the message
and therefore won't obfuscate the information. What angers some, myself
included, is that some of the misinformation that Mxsmanic posts as fact
would be quite dangerous for a student pilot to accept as true. OTOH, the
responses from others that reflect frustration in dealing with such
misinformation give "color" to the readers of the thread, and should help
them to catch on that this person really has nothing to contribute with
regard to flying real aircraft. So, over all, the signal to noise is
*improved* by these contributions because they function as a "noise
filter".

Neil

[A Lieberma]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
om:

> What angers
> some, myself included, is that some of the misinformation that
> Mxsmanic posts as fact would be quite dangerous for a student pilot to
> accept as true.

Agree.... While we can't help the lurkers, we can advise new people that
respond to his posts that he is a troll and use information provided by him
with a grain of salt and they are wasting their valuable time with him.

> OTOH, the responses from others that reflect
> frustration in dealing with such misinformation give "color" to the
> readers of the thread, and should help them to catch on that this
> person really has nothing to contribute with regard to flying real
> aircraft. So, over all, the signal to noise is *improved* by these
> contributions because they function as a "noise filter".

Disagree.... All it should take is one response to stop the noise factor
and others follow suit by not acknowledging him. If we work as a group to
improve the quality, then he will go away getting the message that nobody
will put up with his nonsens.

Opinions will always vary, but GENERALLY speaking, most of his responses
just don't fit the real world situation.

Allen

[Steve Foley]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:%JE8h.2135$gJ1.1662@trndny09...
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Having a transponder squawking 1200 does very little toward
>>> S&R.
>>
>> Isn't that how they located JFK Jr's plane?
>
> At the bottom of the ocean? I think not.
>

IIRC they didn't search the entire floor of the Atlantic. They had a
starting point. Maybe some sonobuoys heard the splash.

[Steve Foley]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> For me, therefore --- transporters, and time travel, are both within my
> grasp.

Do you use the little red transporters, or the little white ones?

[Bob Noel]

In article <LWW8h.4202$_x3.3302@trndny02>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> IIRC they didn't search the entire floor of the Atlantic. They had a
> starting point. Maybe some sonobuoys heard the splash.

SOSUS? what?!!!

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

[Tony]

Actually, JFK Jr was the only one in the front of the airplane. His
wife and her sister were (if I remember the NTSB report correctly) in
the rearmost seats.

He had intended to make the trip in the daylight, but road traffic and
other circumstances delayed him. The leg from about Point Judith RI to
the Vineyard (Point Judith, btw, has a protected harbor called "Harbor
of Last Refuge" and I've taken refuge in it several times, the seas
where Long Island Sound and the Atlantic meet are not very pleasant for
a sailboat) is all over water and in the flight conditions he was in,
although probably marginal VFR, should be flown IFR. The Vineyard stop
was intended to drop off his sister in law (a bright and beautiful
investment banker, already a VP at a major investment house). He and
his wife were supposed to continue on to Cape Cod for a wedding. Had
the Vineyard leg been omitted, the trip would have been mostly over
land, with ground lights probably providing some outside reference.

As for the question about the book -- at least one was titled something
like The Night John Died.

The accident report is available on line at the NTSB site.






On Nov 21, 7:49 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> I've always believed that what nailed Kennedy was not his lack of
> experience, which was ok at 310 hours, but his known problem with
> multi-tasking. This coupled with spatial disorientation can be, and in my
> opinion indeed was a killer.
> I can only speculate on how deeply into his problem with cockpit
> multi-tasking and overload his instructors at Flight Safety managed to go,
> but I do understand he had these issues all through
> his training.
> Its very difficult for instructors when dealing in these areas. You
> certainly can ascertain the problem exists with a student, and you can deal
> with it, but in the end analysis, its extremely difficult if not impossible
> for an instructor to predict how a student will react somewhere down the
> line when suddenly faced with an actual multi-task overload.
> I only have questions on this issue as pertains to the Kennedy accident, not
> accusations. Its quite possible his instructors did all they could to solve
> his issues, but this leaves me with the fact that regardless of the
> instructor's role, I'm fairly well convinced that what killed Kennedy was
> his poor preflight planning putting him in conditions and at a time of day
> that he wasn't prepared to handle coupled with his on board reaction to an
> actual spatial disorientation that overloaded him to the point that he
> reacted contrary to his instrument training not shallowing the bank before
> his pitch correction thus deepening his spiral.
> Who knows actually what really happened? For all we know, the right front
> seat pax might have had an object in their lap that interfered with his
> effort to shallow the bank. No one will ever REALLY know. That's why we
> always get the "probable cause".
> Anyway, I for one will always have unanswered questions about the level the
> instructor accepted somewhere along his learning curve from Kennedy as
> acceptable performance concerning what the instructor absolutely had to know
> was a multi-tasking overload issue.
> Its just the way I approach the flight training issue I guess. Everybody in
> the business has their own way of looking at these things.
> Dudley Henriques
>
> "Tony" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Re JFK Jr's last flight: when you look at the prelim report you'll
> > notice he has had more dual time instruction than for example naval
> > pilots have total time when they're landing on carriers!
>
> > He was pretty well along on his instrument rating as well.
>
> > He was flying with a foot still not healed from a hang gliding
> > accident, and it seems fairly clear he turned off the auto pilot to
> > start down and pulled himself into a spiral. I think radar shows it was
> > less than a minute from 5500 feet to impact.
>
> > A book written about the event said his family didn't ever want to fly
> > with him
>
> > On Nov 21, 5:56 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > It indicates that he didn't use it not that the CFIs didn't teach it.
> >> > From
> >> > the outcome of the flight I'd say there were probably several things
> >> > the
> >> > CFIs taught him that he either forgot or ignored.Actually, I've had a
> >> > problem with the CFI side of the Kennedy equation since
> >> the day of the accident .
> >> I know the area of the crash very well having flown up there myself many
> >> times .
> >> I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
> >> should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under
> >> certain
> >> weather conditions and at certain times of the day. I also wasn't at all
> >> satisfied with his inability to avoid the loss of control situation that
> >> apparently resulted in the loss of the airplane and its occupants both on
> >> the planning end and during the operational end directly prior to the
> >> crash.
> >> This accident seemed literally riddled with contributing causes as indeed
> >> is
> >> the situation in many aircraft accidents.
> >> Not that in my opinion it was the single contributing cause, but I'll
> >> always
> >> have an unanswered question in my mind about the quality of Kennedy's
> >> flight
> >> instruction during his training.
> >> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Montblack]

("Steve Foley" wrote)
>> For me, therefore --- transporters, and time travel, are both within my
>> grasp.
>
> Do you use the little red transporters, or the little white ones?


For Thanksgiving, whichever ones "...makes you small"

(Remember, what the dormouse said: "Feed your head")


Montblack-is-black
I want my baby back
It's gray, it's gray
Since she went away, Ooh-Ooh
What can I do
'Cause I-I-I-I-I'm feelin' blue

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> I believe the transmission of weather information by use of abbreviated
> METAR codes originated in the days of 10 character-per-second Teletypes (or
> possibly even earlier). The ASR 33 Teletype (the model I'm personally
> familiar with) could only print uppercase characters. At that slow rate of
> printing and usingg such a limited character set, brevity was an asset.

Brevity is still an advantage today, albeit a less important one.

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

[Jim Stewart]

Viperdoc wrote:

> How did the sim group shut him out? Please share it with the rest of us so
> we can do the same.
>
> Actually I'm going to France next summer- perhaps I should look him up and
> give him a stack of old charts and books. Besides, I've never seen a real
> live troll before.

But that would be "feeding the troll"

[Jim Stewart]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>Some how your thought on my flying skills concern me not in the least.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I saw this article the other day and thought about you.
>>>>http://flighttraining.aopa.org/members/student_pilot/maneuvers/articles/3582.cfm
>>>
>>>Since I'm not a member, there's no point in giving me a link.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry
>
>
> He should get a simulated subscription to AOPA.
>
This is starting to remind me of the Monte Python
skit where John Cleese trys to get a license for
his pet halibut.

Mxsmanic shows up at the Consignes de Navigabilite...

Mxsmanic: I'd like a license for my simulator plane

Clerk: A license?

Mxsmanic: Yes

Clerk: For a simulator plane?

Mxsmanic: Yes

Clerk: You *are* a loony

Mxsmanic: Look, it's a bleeding plane isn't it? I've
got a license for my Mario Kart.

Clerk: You don't need a license for your Mario Kart

Mxsmanic: I bleedin' well do and I've got one! Can't
be caught out there!

Clerk: There is no such thing as a bloody Mario Kart
license.

Mxsmanic: Is!

Clerk: Isn't!

Mxsmanic: Is!

Clerk: Isn't!

Mxsmanic: Is!

Clerk: Isn't!

Mxsmanic: Is!

Clerk: Isn't!

Mxsmanic: What's that then?

Clerk: This is a bicycle license with the word 'bicycle'
crossed out and 'Mario kart' written in, in crayon.

Mxsmanic: Man didn't have the right form.

Clerk: What man?

Mxsmanic: The man from the Mario Kart detector van.

Clerk: The loony detector van, you mean....


http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/fish.htm

[Kev]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
> should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under certain
> weather conditions and at certain times of the day. [...]

And he wasn't the only one who spiraled in within the same area. Not
long before him, a professional crew doing night IFR certification did
just what he did... and that was with _three_ experienced pilots
aboard.

So it's hard to totally give him grief in this case. As we all know
from research, it can take less than a minute to go from start of
spiral to death.

Regards, Kev

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> night IFR certification
>

wazzat?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kev,
> > night IFR certification
>
> wazzat?

Yeah, sorry, that's what happens when you write with a four-year old on
your lap and your wife is yelling that dinner's ready... you take
shortcuts and hope people extrapolate :-)

I meant, it was pilots for a small airline that needed to get some
simulated IFR time for company currency requirements. So they chose a
dark moonless night over the ocean, and crashed while practicing
unusual attitude recovery when they all got disoriented.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> I meant, it was pilots for a small airline that needed to get some
> simulated IFR time for company currency requirements. So they chose a
> dark moonless night over the ocean, and crashed while practicing
> unusual attitude recovery when they all got disoriented.

Did they lose their jobs?

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

[Tony]

Kev, re your comment about another accident in the same area -- can you
offer other information or a link to the NTSB report?

Thanks

Tony

On Nov 22, 4:38 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
> > should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under certain
> > weather conditions and at certain times of the day. [...]And he wasn't the only one who spiraled in within the same area. Not
> long before him, a professional crew doing night IFR certification did
> just what he did... and that was with _three_ experienced pilots
> aboard.
>
> So it's hard to totally give him grief in this case. As we all know
> from research, it can take less than a minute to go from start of
> spiral to death.
>
> Regards, Kev

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
> > I meant, it was pilots for a small airline that needed to get some
> > simulated IFR time for company currency requirements. So they chose a
> > dark moonless night over the ocean, and crashed while practicing
> > unusual attitude recovery when they all got disoriented.
>
> Did they lose their jobs?

IIRC, they lost their lives, and the incident was reconstructed from
the black box recording.

Kev

[Kev]

Tony wrote:
> Kev, re your comment about another accident in the same area -- can you
> offer other information or a link to the NTSB report?

Man, I'm sorry. I have looked and looked tonight and can't seem to
find that NTSB report again. I even tried Googling my own posts,
since I know I wrote about it on Usenet back in 1999 when JFK Jr
crashed.

My memory is dim, but I believe it was a very small airline, perhaps
even an island air taxi kind of service. I seem to recall that the
NTSB report had a lot of the conversation (they didn't just guess what
the crew was doing) so they must've had a recording to work from, which
I'm not sure an air taxi requires.

I'll keep looking. This is a little frustrating. I want to blame the
chemotherapy, but I think it's just old age :-)

Kev

[Tony]

Kev, if you can aproximate the year and a range of months, I can find
it that way.

I would rather believe it was an overdose of turkey than chemo or age
that's affecting your memory!


Thanks

On Nov 23, 8:20 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > Kev, re your comment about another accident in the same area -- can you
> > offer other information or a link to the NTSB report?Man, I'm sorry. I have looked and looked tonight and can't seem to
> find that NTSB report again. I even tried Googling my own posts,
> since I know I wrote about it on Usenet back in 1999 when JFK Jr
> crashed.
>
> My memory is dim, but I believe it was a very small airline, perhaps
> even an island air taxi kind of service. I seem to recall that the
> NTSB report had a lot of the conversation (they didn't just guess what
> the crew was doing) so they must've had a recording to work from, which
> I'm not sure an air taxi requires.
>
> I'll keep looking. This is a little frustrating. I want to blame the
> chemotherapy, but I think it's just old age :-)
>
> Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Kev, re your comment about another accident in the same area -- can you
> offer other information or a link to the NTSB report?

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Tony writes:
>
>> Kev, re your comment about another accident in the same area -- can
>> you offer other information or a link to the NTSB report?
>
>
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1
>
Wow. You even got this one wrong.

Neil

[Tony]

Kev, I scanned NTSB reports for MA for a few years before the JFK Jr
crash looking for multiple deaths in a part 91 or 135 flight going into
the water around the Vineyard meeting your description, and came up
dry. When I have a few minutes I'll check for Rhode Island accidents.
Any additional clues would be helpful.

Boys and girls, do practice unusual attitude recovery under the hood
with a safety pilot. 30 degree pitch and 60 degree bank limits make it
interesting, and sometimes cover the HSI too. It'll make being the
subject of a NTSB, like the one MX posted which describes the JFK Jr
accident, less likely.

[Journeyman]

On 2006-11-21, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Actually, I've had a problem with the CFI side of the Kennedy equation since
> the day of the accident .
> I know the area of the crash very well having flown up there myself many
> times .
> I've always had an issue with the fact that Kennedy wasn't as aware as he
> should have been about the dangers of horizon loss in the area under certain
> weather conditions and at certain times of the day. I also wasn't at all
> satisfied with his inability to avoid the loss of control situation that
> apparently resulted in the loss of the airplane and its occupants both on
> the planning end and during the operational end directly prior to the crash.
> This accident seemed literally riddled with contributing causes as indeed is
> the situation in many aircraft accidents.
> Not that in my opinion it was the single contributing cause, but I'll always
> have an unanswered question in my mind about the quality of Kennedy's flight
> instruction during his training.
> Dudley Henriques

I read the report at the time, but your comments made me go back to
reread it. It was a text book accident. The NTSB even quoted the text.
Sure there were a lot of contributing causes, but that's the way these
things usually unfold.

Ignoring all other factors, here is a direct quote from the report
regarding the CFI who was currently working with him:

| The CFI stated that the pilot had the ability to fly the airplane without
| a visible horizon but may have had difficulty performing additional
| tasks under such conditions. He also stated that the pilot was not ready
| for an instrument evaluation as of July 1, 1999, and needed additional
| training. The CFI was not aware of the pilot conducting any flight in the
| accident airplane without an instructor on board. He also stated that
| he would not have felt comfortable with the accident pilot conducting
| night flight operations on a route similar to the one flown on, and in
| weather conditions similar to those that existed on, the night of the
| accident. The CFI further stated that he had talked to the pilot on the
| day of the accident and offered to fly with him on the accident flight. He
| stated that the accident pilot replied that "he wanted to do it alone."

Sounds like the CFI did talk to him, but he insisted on going anyway.
What else was the CFI supposed to do?

The NTSB report didn't otherwise paint him as reckless, but this always
sounded like a case of getthereitis to me.

Every once in a while, a more experienced pilot (CFI or not) has said
something to me like, "do you _really_ intend to do that?". I may or
may not have taken the advice, but I've always at least thought about
it. Usually, I took it.


Morris