Is it possible to switch from VFR to IFR and back?

[Mxsmanic]

If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
switch to IFR in flight, or do I have to have filed IFR from the
beginning? If it's possible in flight, how does it work? Is it
possible to later switch back again?

I ask because it seems like it might be practical to start out as VFR
but still have the option of going IFR if the weather turns
unexpectedly poor (at least in terms of visibility or clouds). At the
same time, filing IFR for the whole flight just because part of it
_might_ be in IMC seems like it could be overkill.

This of course assumes that a pilot and aircraft are ready and able to
handle IMC if they encounter it.

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
>instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
>and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
>switch to IFR in flight, or do I have to have filed IFR from the
>beginning? If it's possible in flight, how does it work? Is it
>possible to later switch back again?
>
>I ask because it seems like it might be practical to start out as VFR
>but still have the option of going IFR if the weather turns
>unexpectedly poor (at least in terms of visibility or clouds). At the
>same time, filing IFR for the whole flight just because part of it
>_might_ be in IMC seems like it could be overkill.
>
>This of course assumes that a pilot and aircraft are ready and able to
>handle IMC if they encounter it.
>




This is called "popping-up".
That means that IMC conditions may pop up at any time.
However if the pilot is not IR rated, and/or the aircraft is not IFR
certified, the weather conditions are required to revert to VMC.

[Chris W]

Greg Farris wrote:

> However if the pilot is not IR rated, . . .

"IR rated", what's that? Instrument Rated rated? :)

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:14:35 +0100, Greg Farris >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>>If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
>>instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
>>and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
>>switch to IFR in flight, or do I have to have filed IFR from the
>>beginning? If it's possible in flight, how does it work? Is it
>>possible to later switch back again?

I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.

>>
>>I ask because it seems like it might be practical to start out as VFR
>>but still have the option of going IFR if the weather turns

It is, but the weather can be beautiful VMC and you can still "air
file" IFR. *Sometimes* IFR makes it easier through some areas and
*sometimes* going VFR can save a lot of aggrivation.

>>unexpectedly poor (at least in terms of visibility or clouds). At the
>>same time, filing IFR for the whole flight just because part of it
>>_might_ be in IMC seems like it could be overkill.

I find that some flight are just plain easier to file the whole thing
IFR, particularly out here in the open country where you can ask,
expect, and receive a direct clearance.

>>
>>This of course assumes that a pilot and aircraft are ready and able to
>>handle IMC if they encounter it.
>>

>This is called "popping-up".
>That means that IMC conditions may pop up at any time.
>However if the pilot is not IR rated, and/or the aircraft is not IFR
>certified, the weather conditions are required to revert to VMC.

I don't think that is quite the definition of "popping up", or a "pop
up clearance". Althoug it's kinda, sorta, in the neighborhood, more or
less. A pop up has little if any thing to do with conditions and a
lot to do with a pilot taking off and then air filing. He "pops up"

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> s there a way to
> switch to IFR in flight,
>

Yes. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+I for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.

Roger, this was posted by the simulator troll. He has no clue about anything,
let-alone instrument ratings!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> s there a way to
>> switch to IFR in flight,
>>
>
> Yes. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+I for that.

No, you get the command prompt, and then type in "format C"

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.
>

You're kidding, right? The question comes from MX, who's flying sims.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>>> s there a way to
>>> switch to IFR in flight,
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+I for that.
>
> No, you get the command prompt, and then type in "format C"

That won't work.

You need to use FDISK to remove the partition virus.

[Judah]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.

It is covered in instrument training.

The person who asked the question is not instrument trained. He hasn't had
any pilot training at all.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> No, you get the command prompt, and then type in "format C"
>
> That won't work.
>
> You need to use FDISK to remove the partition virus.

OK. I have only had to format one NT based machines, unlike the older stuff.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.

I haven't had instrument training. The FAA book I found on IFR seems
to be more of a promotional book explaining how wonderfully the FAA
has organized air traffic control, and at least the parts I've read
thus far don't really explain IFR flight.

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

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Mxsmanic > writes:
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
> > I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.
>
> I haven't had instrument training. The FAA book I found on IFR seems
> to be more of a promotional book explaining how wonderfully the FAA
> has organized air traffic control, and at least the parts I've read
> thus far don't really explain IFR flight.

That is probably because the book is designed as supplement to IFR
training, and not as a substitute for it.

Chris

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Mxsmanic,
>
>> s there a way to
>> switch to IFR in flight,
>>
>
>Yes. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+I for that.
>
>--


That requires too many fingers!
I cannot let go of the yolk that long!!

[Newps]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:14:35 +0100, Greg Farris >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
says...
>>
>>>
>>>If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
>>>instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
>>>and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
>>>switch to IFR in flight, or do I have to have filed IFR from the
>>>beginning? If it's possible in flight, how does it work? Is it
>>>possible to later switch back again?
>
>
> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.

Now that's funny.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>>This is called "popping-up".
>>That means that IMC conditions may pop up at any time.
>>However if the pilot is not IR rated, and/or the aircraft is not IFR
>>certified, the weather conditions are required to revert to VMC.
>
>I don't think that is quite the definition of "popping up", or a "pop
>up clearance". Althoug it's kinda, sorta, in the neighborhood, more or
>less. A pop up has little if any thing to do with conditions and a
>lot to do with a pilot taking off and then air filing. He "pops up"
>



Tough to make a joke around here!!
Check again - are you -SURE- this is not the correct definition of
"popping-up"?

[Blanche]

IMC - instrument meteorological conditions
IFR - instrument flight rules
IR - instrument rating

Weather is IMC
A pilot is Instrument Rated (IR)
FAA rules of flight are either IFR or VFR

[Blanche]

Greg Farris > wrote:
says...
>>
>>Mxsmanic,
>>
>>> s there a way to
>>> switch to IFR in flight,
>>
>>Yes. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+I for that.
>>
>That requires too many fingers!
>I cannot let go of the yolk that long!!

try /dev/null

[Jim Macklin]

You be and are subject to both IFR and VFR when flying in
VMC [not Vmc] and you are expected to do both at the same
time in many cases.



"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
| IMC - instrument meteorological conditions
| IFR - instrument flight rules
| IR - instrument rating
|
| Weather is IMC
| A pilot is Instrument Rated (IR)
| FAA rules of flight are either IFR or VFR

[Thomas Borchert]

Greg,

> I cannot let go of the yolk that long!!
>

Ah, the yolk. And then there'S the egg white to take care of, too. ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Greg,
>
>> I cannot let go of the yolk that long!!
>>
>
>Ah, the yolk. And then there'S the egg white to take care of, too. ;-)
>

You do not appear to be aware that aircraft have only yolks, and not
whites. I know this because I have designed many planes - but it still
makes a mess if you let go of it!

[Jim Macklin]

I guess the yoke is on you?
Yoke of oxen, heard of cows? Did you here about the quality
public educational system? Me neither.
Too
To
Two
Yolk
Yoke
Here
Hear
Where
Wear
Ware as in software and hardware
Were
Whir
There
Their
They're
hair
hare
rabbit
rabbet
toad
towed
road
rowed
mode
mowed
warn
worn


not a complete list


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Greg,
|
| > I cannot let go of the yolk that long!!
| >
|
| Ah, the yolk. And then there'S the egg white to take care
of, too. ;-)
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> You do not appear to be aware that aircraft have only yolks, and not
> whites. I know this because I have designed many planes - but it still
> makes a mess if you let go of it!

Oh, come on! The Cirrus is all white, and has no yolk. Just because I
use a floppy drive doesn't mean I'm not up on the latest aviation
technology!

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.

[Jim Macklin]

Viagra will cure a floppy drive.



"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
|> You do not appear to be aware that aircraft have only
yolks, and not
| > whites. I know this because I have designed many
lanes - but it still
| > makes a mess if you let go of it!
|
| Oh, come on! The Cirrus is all white, and has no yolk.
Just because I
| use a floppy drive doesn't mean I'm not up on the latest
aviation
| technology!
|
| 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.

[Judah]

Ahh, so _THAT'S_ what they mean when they say you keep arguing with Manic
Ad-Homonym!!!


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> I guess the yoke is on you?
> Yoke of oxen, heard of cows? Did you here about the quality
> public educational system? Me neither.
> Too
> To
> Two
> Yolk
> Yoke
> Here
> Hear
> Where
> Wear
> Ware as in software and hardware
> Were
> Whir
> There
> Their
> They're
> hair
> hare
> rabbit
> rabbet
> toad
> towed
> road
> rowed
> mode
> mowed
> warn
> worn
>
>
> not a complete list

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:32:24 +0100, Greg Farris wrote:

> Tough to make a joke around here!!

I got it: "...weather conditions are required to revert to VMC."

Personally, I use the weather pull down on the Reality Menu.

- Andrew

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> Too
> To
> Two
> Yolk
> Yoke
> Here
> Hear
> Where
> Wear
> Ware as in software and hardware
> Were
> Whir
> There
> Their
> They're
> hair
> hare
> rabbit
> rabbet
> toad
> towed
> road
> rowed
> mode
> mowed
> warn
> worn
>
>
> not a complete list

Lose
Loose

Loser
Looser

(Although the pronunciation of those pairings are supposed to be
different, a lot of people seem to confuse their spelling.)

Still not a complete list. :-)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:47:44 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>
>> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.
>
>Roger, this was posted by the simulator troll. He has no clue about anything,
>let-alone instrument ratings!

Ahhh...Thank you. I don't see those postings, but I see some of the
other replies and when there is a bit too much enthusiasm in trimming
I don't see the history.

Even the sim groups are getting exasperated.




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

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/24/06 15:38, B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:05:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>Roger (K8RI) writes:
>>
>>> I'm surprised this was not covered in the instrument training.
>>
>>I haven't had instrument training. The FAA book I found on IFR seems
>>to be more of a promotional book explaining how wonderfully the FAA
>>has organized air traffic control, and at least the parts I've read
>>thus far don't really explain IFR flight.
>
> Try "The Instrument Flying Handbook", it's ~ $14US @ amazon.com.
>
> While you're at it, pick up "The Airplane Flying Handbook."
>
> "Real" (and student) pilots may want to do the same. Both books are
> chock full of good info, without the extra BS and gloss found in
> commercial products, like the $80 Jeppesen hardcover text books.

These are available for free from the FAA web site. Here is the
Airplane Flying Handbook:

<http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook>

and here is the Instrument Flying Handbook:

<http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook>

Also, here's the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge:

<http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/handbook>


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

[Blanche]

Jim Macklin > wrote:
>You be and are subject to both IFR and VFR when flying in
>VMC [not Vmc] and you are expected to do both at the same
>time in many cases.
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>| IMC - instrument meteorological conditions
>| IFR - instrument flight rules
>| IR - instrument rating
>|
>| Weather is IMC
>| A pilot is Instrument Rated (IR)
>| FAA rules of flight are either IFR or VFR

True. I was merely pointing out definitions and usage of the
acronyms.

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/24/06 16:48, B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:46:10 -0800, Mark Hansen
> > wrote:
>>
>>These are available for free from the FAA web site.
>
> I forgot all about the free online version!
>
> I like to write in, sticker tab, and highlight text books. For $14
> for a pretty printed and bound copy, it isn't worth my printer time.
> <G>

Me too, but someone mentioned that they couldn't afford a few bucks to
buy a book and the on line version makes a good alternative.

>
> I know someone outside of Usenet who will like this, so THANKS!

Hey, no problem ;-)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> That is probably because the book is designed as supplement to IFR
> training, and not as a substitute for it.

A promotional book isn't a very good supplement to any kind of
training.

The FAA publishes other books that are very informative. If it can
produce such books for VFR, which lends itself far less to book
learning, it can certainly do so for IFR. I just haven't been able to
find the right book, I think.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Try "The Instrument Flying Handbook", it's ~ $14US @ amazon.com.

I'm unable to buy stuff. Can it be downloaded from the FAA site?

> While you're at it, pick up "The Airplane Flying Handbook."

That one I have. A nice book.

I think I may have found the right book: is it FAA-H-8083-15?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> and here is the Instrument Flying Handbook:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook>

OK, I think I have it now. I've already downloaded the other two.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> It is, but the weather can be beautiful VMC and you can still "air
> file" IFR. *Sometimes* IFR makes it easier through some areas and
> *sometimes* going VFR can save a lot of aggrivation.

It seems--at least in simulation--that instrument flight in VFR can be
handy for flights that are of non-trivial length. You can look at the
scenery more, and relax a bit when scanning instruments. And you can
spend more time looking for traffic.

> I find that some flight are just plain easier to file the whole thing
> IFR, particularly out here in the open country where you can ask,
> expect, and receive a direct clearance.

But once you are IFR, you can't just turn to sightsee in an area that
interests you without ATC approval, right?

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

[Chris W]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm unable to buy stuff. Can it be downloaded from the FAA site?

No offense, but if you can't afford a $15 book, maybe you should stop
wasting time playing computer games, and spend more time earning money,
or developing the skills to earn more money.


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Mike Adams[_1_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Still not a complete list. :-)

Here's a quote from the local newspaper. I kid you not.

"We have a wonderful selection of holiday tins, baskets of all sizes, as
well as pretty plates and bowels."

[A Lieberma]

Mark Hansen > wrote in news:12mf6ht5gng7e47
@corp.supernews.com:

> Me too, but someone mentioned that they couldn't afford a few bucks to
> buy a book and the on line version makes a good alternative.

and that said mention someone won't read the sites anyway since he said
previously he wanted pilots experiences.....

Allen

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Chris W" > wrote

> No offense, but if you can't afford a $15 book, maybe you should stop
> wasting time playing computer games, and spend more time earning money,
> or developing the skills to earn more money.

That is far from a new suggestion. It has been made at least a dozen times.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> It seems--at least in simulation--that instrument flight in VFR can be
> handy for flights that are of non-trivial length. You can look at the
> scenery more, and relax a bit when scanning instruments. And you can
> spend more time looking for traffic.

And this is something you need to tell us here, ....Why? Why do you think we
care? This is a group for student PILOTS, not simulator game pretend pilots.

Looking at scenery on a game is far from reality. You need help, man.

> But once you are IFR, you can't just turn to sightsee in an area that
> interests you without ATC approval, right?

Why do you care on a simulator game? Are you afraid you are going to get a call
from the simulated air traffic controller, and get a simulated suspension, or
fine?

Get a grip on reality. Seek help. Start by putting your computer away, and
participate in the real world.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

Mark Hansen > wrote:
> These are available for free from the FAA web site. Here is the
> Airplane Flying Handbook:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook>
>
> and here is the Instrument Flying Handbook:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbo
> ok>
>
> Also, here's the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/handbook>

I had downloaded the PDFs of the FAA's books before I went out and bought
the print versions. Why, some of you may ask, would I pay good money for
something I already had free electronic copies? Because it's tough to haul
my desktop (or even laptop) computer into the (ahem) bathroom, or to the
easy chair in the living room, or prop on my chest while lying in bed.

:-)

[A Lieberma]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Why, some of you may ask, would I pay good
> money for something I already had free electronic copies? Because it's
> tough to haul my desktop (or even laptop) computer into the (ahem)
> bathroom, or to the easy chair in the living room, or prop on my chest
> while lying in bed.

Printer cartridges and paper surely is cheaper?

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Chris W writes:

> No offense, but if you can't afford a $15 book, maybe you should stop
> wasting time playing computer games, and spend more time earning money,
> or developing the skills to earn more money.

No offense, but my financial situation is not your concern, and is not
relevant to the topic at hand.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Printer cartridges and paper surely is cheaper?

Actually, no. It's vastly cheaper to buy a book than it is to try to
print it at home. In fact, even photocopies can be more expensive
than a bound book under some circumstances.

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

[Jim Logajan]

A Lieberma > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> Why, some of you may ask, would I pay good
>> money for something I already had free electronic copies? Because it's
>> tough to haul my desktop (or even laptop) computer into the (ahem)
>> bathroom, or to the easy chair in the living room, or prop on my chest
>> while lying in bed.
>
> Printer cartridges and paper surely is cheaper?

I'm not sure if there is a big difference. My laser printer only does black
and white anyway (and my wife's color inkjet is very slow). And there is
the need for some binding. On very long electronic documents I tend to opt
for print copies if the cost isn't too bad and the time to get them isn't
critical.

All things considered I found it easier to order the books from Amazon.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
> instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
> and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
> switch to IFR in flight,

Yes. It's called a pop-up clearance.

> or do I have to have filed IFR from the beginning?

No.

> If it's possible in flight, how does it work?

Just ask ATC for a clearance. If they aren't too busy they will just
give you one. If they are busy you will need to contact flight service
by radio to file an IFR flight plan, then get back in touch with ATC to
activate it.

Landing somewhere first is also an option.

> Is it possible to later switch back again?

Yes, you can switch from IFR to VFR at any time by simply telling ATC
that you are "canceling IFR."

> I ask because it seems like it might be practical to start out as VFR
> but still have the option of going IFR if the weather turns
> unexpectedly poor (at least in terms of visibility or clouds). At the
> same time, filing IFR for the whole flight just because part of it
> _might_ be in IMC seems like it could be overkill.

Why? People fly IFR in VFR conditions all the time.

> This of course assumes that a pilot and aircraft are ready and able to
> handle IMC if they encounter it.

It's much better to be IFR the whole way if there's any chance of
encountering instrument conditions anywhere on the flight.

rg

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I'm unable to buy stuff.
>

Well, you get what you pay for.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> No offense, but my financial situation is not your concern,

Then stop bringing it up all the time.

>and is not
> relevant to the topic at hand.
>
Sure is. You can't afford a decent book.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Then stop bringing it up all the time.

I haven't. I explain why I cannot do certain things when necessary,
and I stop there.

> Sure is. You can't afford a decent book.

My lack of money is relevant. The rest is not.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Just ask ATC for a clearance. If they aren't too busy they will just
> give you one. If they are busy you will need to contact flight service
> by radio to file an IFR flight plan, then get back in touch with ATC to
> activate it.

Do I have to work out a whole list of waypoints and stuff to give to
them? Can I just ask for IFR clearance to my destination (or to some
specific point where I expect to find VMC again), without specifying
waypoints or altitudes?

Usually I have a VFR flight plan which in fact does include waypoints,
because I've worked something out with a chart beforehand, but not
always. If I've filed a VFR flight plan that mentions way points, can
I refer to it when asking ATC for IFR clearance? In other words, just
convert part of the VFR flight plan to an IFR flight plan?

> Landing somewhere first is also an option.

Yes, but if I can't see anything out the window, this is not without
risk (mainly from conflicting traffic, even if I have instruments that
allow me to land in poor visibility).

> Yes, you can switch from IFR to VFR at any time by simply telling ATC
> that you are "canceling IFR."

Do I get in trouble if I file VFR, encounter IMC, and have to ask for
IFR clearance as a result? I know I'm not supposed to take off in
IMC, but it seems like on a trip of substantial length, it's hard to
guarantee that it will all be fair weather, especially in some regions
of the world (the area around Seattle seems very pretty, although it
also seems that one can rarely _see_ the area around Seattle).

> Why? People fly IFR in VFR conditions all the time.

I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented. So I
assume that it's rare for the pilot of a small plane to fly IFR
"unofficially" while under VFR. It sounds like a lot of them have no
idea how to do it.

> It's much better to be IFR the whole way if there's any chance of
> encountering instrument conditions anywhere on the flight.

Because ... ?

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

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>>
>>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>>| IMC - instrument meteorological conditions
>>| IFR - instrument flight rules
>>| IR - instrument rating
>>|
>>| Weather is IMC
>>| A pilot is Instrument Rated (IR)
>>| FAA rules of flight are either IFR or VFR
>
>True. I was merely pointing out definitions and usage of the
>acronyms.
>


Well, I can't tell you how relieved I am to learn that someone has
actually read at least the first page of an IFR training book. Even if it
is just the first page (or the inside cover) it's a start! One more page
and you will vastly exceed the general knowledge level to which this
discussion group has acquiesced of late!

GF

(PS no personal denigration intended whatsoever. My gripe is with the
level of discourse to which the group has sunk since the arrival of the
lead weight).

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...


>I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
>not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
>occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented.


It is possible to read many things that are not true - particularly if you
hang out in places like this!!

The number of US private pilots who are instrument rated is much better than
this - which unfortunately does not preclude them from becoming disoriented
in IMC. The subject of instrument flight and training is very interesting,
but relatively complex, involving matters of human factors, training
methods, regulations and their interpretation, currency requirements and
their interpretation and usefuleness and I could go on - All of these
considerations put the subject out of reasonable bounds for those who have
no genuine interest in learning.

GF

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> It is possible to read many things that are not true - particularly if you
> hang out in places like this!!

I don't remember where I read it.

> The number of US private pilots who are instrument rated is much better than
> this - which unfortunately does not preclude them from becoming disoriented
> in IMC.

Does that include private pilots who fly only small GA aircraft, or is
it _all_ private pilots (including commercial airline pilots)?

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > Just ask ATC for a clearance. If they aren't too busy they will just
> > give you one. If they are busy you will need to contact flight service
> > by radio to file an IFR flight plan, then get back in touch with ATC to
> > activate it.
>
> Do I have to work out a whole list of waypoints and stuff to give to
> them?

Nope, they (actually their computer) will figure that out for you.

> Can I just ask for IFR clearance to my destination (or to some
> specific point where I expect to find VMC again), without specifying
> waypoints or altitudes?

Yep.

> Usually I have a VFR flight plan which in fact does include waypoints,
> because I've worked something out with a chart beforehand, but not
> always. If I've filed a VFR flight plan that mentions way points, can
> I refer to it when asking ATC for IFR clearance?

Nope, ATC has no access to VFR flight plans.

> In other words, just
> convert part of the VFR flight plan to an IFR flight plan?

Nope.

> > Landing somewhere first is also an option.
>
> Yes, but if I can't see anything out the window, this is not without
> risk (mainly from conflicting traffic, even if I have instruments that
> allow me to land in poor visibility).

If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.


> > Yes, you can switch from IFR to VFR at any time by simply telling ATC
> > that you are "canceling IFR."
>
> Do I get in trouble if I file VFR, encounter IMC, and have to ask for
> IFR clearance as a result?

Not unless you actually enter IMC without an IFR clearance.

> I know I'm not supposed to take off in
> IMC, but it seems like on a trip of substantial length, it's hard to
> guarantee that it will all be fair weather, especially in some regions
> of the world (the area around Seattle seems very pretty, although it
> also seems that one can rarely _see_ the area around Seattle).

That's why having a plan B is always advisable.

> > Why? People fly IFR in VFR conditions all the time.
>
> I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
> not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
> occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented. So I
> assume that it's rare for the pilot of a small plane to fly IFR
> "unofficially" while under VFR. It sounds like a lot of them have no
> idea how to do it.

I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'. It's true
that many people don't have instrument ratings. Those people have fewer
options when flying cross-country.

> > It's much better to be IFR the whole way if there's any chance of
> > encountering instrument conditions anywhere on the flight.
>
> Because ... ?

I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
> already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.

Well, if you are equipped for instrument flight and rated for it and
there isn't too much traffic, I wouldn't call it an emergency,
although you do need to get flight separation services or get back to
VMC as quickly as possible.

> I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'.

Flying using instruments even though you haven't filed an instrument
flight plan. For example, my habit of flying with a GPS or by
following VORs rather than looking for landmarks out the window.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
> > already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.
>
> Well, if you are equipped for instrument flight and rated for it and
> there isn't too much traffic, I wouldn't call it an emergency,

Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

> although you do need to get flight separation services or get back to
> VMC as quickly as possible.

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

> > I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'.
>
> Flying using instruments even though you haven't filed an instrument
> flight plan. For example, my habit of flying with a GPS or by
> following VORs rather than looking for landmarks out the window.

Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

rg

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> (PS no personal denigration intended whatsoever. My gripe is with the
> level of discourse to which the group has sunk since the arrival of the
> lead weight).

The message needs to get to all of the members of this group, that any
non-adversarial communication with the lead weight will tend to make it
continue.

We all need to make it uncomfortable to be here, for the lead weight.
--
Jim in NC

PS Personal denigration intended.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Does that include private pilots who fly only small GA aircraft, or is
> it _all_ private pilots (including commercial airline pilots)?

It doesn't matter what the statistics are like in the real world. In your
simulator, the program will not change.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Garret" > wrote

> That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
> meantime?

His simulator will not hit anything, and if it does, the game will start over
again.

Ron, just tell him to go ask the simulator folks. They have all of the
information he needs to know, for his game.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
> flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
> flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
> of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
> airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
> instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
> regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

If you have the right instruments, and an instrument rating, and ATC
to provide separation, why would it be dangerous?

I know that most IFR flights are rigidly planned, but it appears that
they don't have to be. You need to know where you are and where you
are going, but you don't have to plan every detail in advance.

> That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
> meantime?

All it takes is a call to ATC. If you already know your instruments
and you already have your navaids and what-not set up, you already
know where you are and where you are going, irrespective of what you
can see out the window. You just look out the window for separation
and as an additional sanity check on your navigation, or just for
sightseeing. If visibility drops, you're covered, except for
separation--whence the call to ATC when you approach IMC.

> Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

What are the differences? ATC provides separation and guidance for
IFR flights, but besides that, what changes?

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
> > flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
> > flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
> > of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
> > airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
> > instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
> > regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.
>
> If you have the right instruments, and an instrument rating, and ATC
> to provide separation, why would it be dangerous?

Because ATC only provides separation from other airplanes. It does not
provide separation from terrain. Also, with VFR into IMC situations you
often don't have contact with ATC. So you have to get out your chart,
try to figure out where you are (not all planes have moving map GPS),
find the right frequency, dial it in, call them up, wait for a
response... and all the time you have to fly the plane without being
able to see where you're going. It's not so easy in real life as it
might appear in a sim.

> I know that most IFR flights are rigidly planned, but it appears that
> they don't have to be. You need to know where you are and where you
> are going, but you don't have to plan every detail in advance.

And what will you do if your GPS fails?

> > That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
> > meantime?
>
> All it takes is a call to ATC.

No. ATC does not provide terrain separation.

> If you already know your instruments
> and you already have your navaids and what-not set up, you already
> know where you are and where you are going, irrespective of what you
> can see out the window.

Those are all big IFs.

> You just look out the window for separation
> and as an additional sanity check on your navigation, or just for
> sightseeing. If visibility drops, you're covered, except for
> separation--whence the call to ATC when you approach IMC.

Sure. But you keep switching the topic back and forth between "when you
approach IMC" and when you are IN IMC. Those are two very different
circumstances.

> > Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.
>
> What are the differences? ATC provides separation and guidance for
> IFR flights, but besides that, what changes?

The major differences are: 1) in IMC you cannot rely on your peripheral
vision. This makes a much bigger difference than you might imagine (and
you can't experience it in simulation unless you have a lot of
monitors). 2) approach to landing must be done in a much more stylized
and pre-planned way in order to avoid terrain that you can't see. 3) if
you don't have a moving-map GPS you have to twiddle a lot of knobs in
the right way at the right time, which adds to your workload. The
combination of all three of these factors makes for a very different
experience.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Because ATC only provides separation from other airplanes. It does not
> provide separation from terrain.

If you know your position and altitude, charts will provide you with
separation from terrain. There are probably moving-map systems that
will do the same, although I'm not personally familiar with them (it's
certainly feasible to a large extent).

> Also, with VFR into IMC situations you often don't have contact with ATC.

You call them when you see the clouds or fog coming.

> So you have to get out your chart, try to figure out where you are
> (not all planes have moving map GPS), find the right frequency,
> dial it in, call them up, wait for a response ... and all the time
> you have to fly the plane without being able to see where you're going.

If I'm flying the plane, I'll already know where I am based on
instruments, irrespective of weather conditions. I'm not going to
start looking at the chart and instruments only as I approach the IMC.

Additionally, I'll avoid aircraft that do not appear to have
instrumentation adequate to make IFR flight safe and reliable (in
addition to legal).

> It's not so easy in real life as it might appear in a sim.

Maybe. How much of it have you done in a sim? I wouldn't call
instrument flight in a sim easy--most sim pilots don't know how to do
it.

> And what will you do if your GPS fails?

Since I'll already know the nearest VORs and I'll be tuned to them, I
can go with that. I often do, anyway, as it's sometimes easier than
fooling with the GPS.

However, if all radio navaids fail, I'm in a bit more of a quandry, as
I have very little experience so far with dead reckoning.
Fortunately, it's relatively unlikely that I would have a total
failure of all navaids at the same time that I happen to get stuck in
IMC. And, by definition, if you have no instruments, you cannot fly
IFR.

> No. ATC does not provide terrain separation.

I can provide terrain separation myself. In most cases I will already
be thousands of feet above the highest terrain in the area, out of
sheer prudence, and I have charts and navigational equipment to tell
me where I am and how high the terrain below happens to be. I only
need ATC for separation from other aircraft (TCAS helps in this
respect, but I'm assuming I wouldn't have that onboard, and it's not
100% reliable). Hopefully I'll have a radar altimeter, too, although
it's only useful in certain situations.

> Those are all big IFs.

That depends on your personal policies as a pilot. If you routinely
make use of instruments to verify your position, you'll already know
where you are if you lose visual contact with the outside world.
You'll just have to be a bit more careful since you won't be able to
double-check anything visually. And you'll need ATC to help you stay
clear of other aircraft.

> Sure. But you keep switching the topic back and forth between "when you
> approach IMC" and when you are IN IMC. Those are two very different
> circumstances.

Visually, yes. But depending on how much you routinely use your
instruments, it might not be that much different in other ways.

I might well look for landmarks out the window in good weather. But
that would not prevent me from keeping track of a VOR or two, and
looking at the GPS display or EHSI occasionally to make sure that all
information sources agree on my position. If I see unavoidable IMC
approaching, I call ATC for separation services, and I watch my
instruments more carefully.

One of the things I like about aviation is that it _is_ possible to
fly without any external visibility at all (excluding landing and
take-off, which are special circumstances). All you need is a few
instruments, a couple of charts, and knowledge of how to use them. I
find it fascinating that I can fly for hours with nothing but fog out
the window, then descend below the weather and see a runway directly
ahead of me, _exactly where the instruments and charts promised it
would be_. It is very reassuring. It proves that if you follow the
rules, and you are careful and diligent, and you know your procedures,
you can always find your way home. Ultimately the only thing you have
to worry about is other aircraft ... and that's where ATC comes into
play.

> The major differences are: 1) in IMC you cannot rely on your peripheral
> vision.

If you are flying with instruments, you're not relying on peripheral
vision, either.

If you are flying with instruments, visual contact with the outside
world is only one of several sources of information. It helps you to
make sure that all is well, but if it abruptly becomes unavailable,
you still know exactly where you are, if you know how to use your
instruments.

In anything other than the severest of clear weather all the way to
the horizon, in the daytime, I'd be nervous relying on visual cues
alone. If it were required for a test, I could do it, but left to my
own devices, I'd look for confirmation from instruments and charts.
Mountains and rivers tend to look the same after a while; I want to
know if that twisty little river ahead really is the one that I think
it is before I try to follow it home.

> This makes a much bigger difference than you might imagine (and
> you can't experience it in simulation unless you have a lot of
> monitors).

I can "turn my head" in a sim, but it is true that visibilty is in
most ways much more limited than in real life (although I can look
directly backwards in the sim, whereas the aircraft would block much
of my view in real life).

> 2) approach to landing must be done in a much more stylized
> and pre-planned way in order to avoid terrain that you can't see.

That's how I land already. I consider a purely visual landing to be
sloppy. I always check the instruments to see if I'm really at the
altitude I appear to be at, if I'm really aligned as I should be, and
so on. Even in perfect weather, I may still be tuned to the ILS for a
straight-in approach, just to make sure that my glide path and
alignment agree with the instruments.

Additionally, I always try to navigate in a way and plan ahead in a
way that allows me a straight-in approach. I'll fly a pattern if I
have to, but otherwise straight in is preferable. Even for flying a
pattern, I'll check instruments.

> 3) if you don't have a moving-map GPS you have to twiddle a lot
> of knobs in the right way at the right time, which adds to your
> workload.

Yes, but planning ahead seems to help a little. It makes me nervous
if I don't have at least a VOR or beacon or something that I can use
to double-check that I really am where I think I am, no matter how
familiar the view out the window might be.

I like to be sure that the little airstrip I see up ahead really is
the airstrip I'm looking for. I'm especially vigilant about this
because I understand that airports are hard to recognize in real life,
even though they are already hard to recognize in the sim.

> The combination of all three of these factors makes for a very different
> experience.

If one flies purely visually and is suddenly thrust into a situation
where visual information is unavailable, I can see how panic would set
in. But if one is already scanning instruments with an awareness of
one's position derived therefrom, a sudden transition into low
visibility should be far less stressful.

Some pilots are willing to fly aircraft that don't provide the minimum
necessary for instrument flight, but I don't think I'd be very
sanguine about trying that myself, no matter how great the weather
might seem. I spend a lot of time thinking "what if?"

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

[Newps]

Ron Garret wrote:


>
> Because ATC only provides separation from other airplanes. It does not
> provide separation from terrain.


We most certainly do.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> I can provide terrain separation myself.

You always have separation from terrain, as long as the legs on your desk don't
collapse.

You fly a computer, man. Get over yourself.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > The major differences are: 1) in IMC you cannot rely on your peripheral
> > vision.
>
> If you are flying with instruments, you're not relying on peripheral
> vision, either.

You'd be surprised.

> > This makes a much bigger difference than you might imagine (and
> > you can't experience it in simulation unless you have a lot of
> > monitors).
>
> I can "turn my head" in a sim

Not the same thing at all I'm afraid.


> Yes, but planning ahead seems to help a little.

Indeed.

> > The combination of all three of these factors makes for a very different
> > experience.
>
> If one flies purely visually and is suddenly thrust into a situation
> where visual information is unavailable, I can see how panic would set
> in. But if one is already scanning instruments with an awareness of
> one's position derived therefrom, a sudden transition into low
> visibility should be far less stressful.

Less stressful to be sure. But you'd be amazed how different it can be
if you really can't see out the window and your (real not simulated)
life is on the line.

> Some pilots are willing to fly aircraft that don't provide the minimum
> necessary for instrument flight, but I don't think I'd be very
> sanguine about trying that myself, no matter how great the weather
> might seem. I spend a lot of time thinking "what if?"

Southern California in the summer is pretty safe for VFR flight.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Because ATC only provides separation from other airplanes. It does not
> > provide separation from terrain.
>
>
> We most certainly do.

Not if I pop up in some random place you don't (which is the situation
under discussion).

rg

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Disclaimer -- I am still a student pilot, so take what I say with a
grain of salt. :-)

Mxsmanic > writes:
> I can provide terrain separation myself. In most cases I will already
> be thousands of feet above the highest terrain in the area, out of
> sheer prudence, and I have charts and navigational equipment to tell
> me where I am and how high the terrain below happens to be. I only
> need ATC for separation from other aircraft (TCAS helps in this
> respect, but I'm assuming I wouldn't have that onboard, and it's not
> 100% reliable). Hopefully I'll have a radar altimeter, too, although
> it's only useful in certain situations.

AFAIK, the majority of GA planes have neither radar altimeters nor
TCAS. Those are much more common on jets. Most jets are flown
commercially, and commercial flights amost always fly IFR from takeoff
to landing, no matter what the weather. Your assumptions may be a
little off...

> In anything other than the severest of clear weather all the way to
> the horizon, in the daytime, I'd be nervous relying on visual cues
> alone. If it were required for a test, I could do it, but left to my
> own devices, I'd look for confirmation from instruments and charts.
> Mountains and rivers tend to look the same after a while; I want to
> know if that twisty little river ahead really is the one that I think
> it is before I try to follow it home.

Quick confirmation is okay. But if you are flying either IFR or VFR
in VMC, you probably don't want to keep your head in the cockpit too
much -- your primary responsibility is to look outside to avoid
hitting other planes. Even in the best weather spotting other planes
is hard, if the weather is less than optimal you need to be looking
even harder! That is no time to be focusing on your instruments --
you can only do that safely if you have ATC keeping the other planes
away from you -- and you can only assume ATC is able to do that if you
either flying in IMC (and so can assume no VFR traffic) or are in
airspace where ATC provides separation for all planes (not just IFR
traffic), such as class A or B airspace.

> Some pilots are willing to fly aircraft that don't provide the minimum
> necessary for instrument flight, but I don't think I'd be very
> sanguine about trying that myself, no matter how great the weather
> might seem. I spend a lot of time thinking "what if?"

Bad or marginal weather is usually pretty easy to spot from a
distance. If you are flying a plane without an IFR rating, or without
IFR equipment, the trick is to just avoid the bad weather. Is it
foggy? Don't fly. About to rain, and may rain hard enough to
obstruct vision? Don't fly. Storm front between you and your
destination? Turn around or land. If you are conservative in your
flying decisions, the dreaded "visual flight into IMC" will never
happen. The trick is to have the judgement and willpower to remain
conservative, and to keep your margin of safety and resist the urge to
fly... (And if you want to fly more often in worse weather, first
acquire the necessary training and a better plane.... Of course, this
can cost big $$$...)

Chris

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> You'd be surprised.

I'd be in danger. If there's nothing but fog outside the windows, how
is peripheral vision going to help me with the instruments? Which
instruments are in my peripheral vision?

> Less stressful to be sure. But you'd be amazed how different it can be
> if you really can't see out the window and your (real not simulated)
> life is on the line.

No, I would not be amazed. But I would try to be calm. Pilots die
when they cannot remain calm.

Sometimes, when listening to CVR recordings, I notice that the pilots
who ultimately survive sound a lot calmer than the ones who don't,
even in situations of equivalent risk. Transcripts show the same
thing.

> Southern California in the summer is pretty safe for VFR flight.

That's one reason why I fly there in the sim, although much of it is
just the fact that I'm familiar with it. Arizona is similar. If I
need a challenge, I move up near Seattle. If I need a nap, I visit
the Great Plains in clear weather.

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

[A Lieberma]

Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote in
:

> Disclaimer -- I am still a student pilot, so take what I say with a
> grain of salt. :-)

<snip>

> Bad or marginal weather is usually pretty easy to spot from a
> distance.

Hi Chris,

The above is not necessarily true. Especially when the weather is
developing GRADUALLY. I have seen it gradually go from severe clear to
MVFR especially in the summer time and when haze is involved.

It's the gradual phase is what will catch you off guard. I have flown
many times where viz is greater then 10 miles and by the time I get to my
destination, viz reduces down to 2 to 3 miles. Only thing noticeble at
altitude is the forward visibility getting less and less on the ground,
as more often then not for me, it's severe clear at cruise altitude, but
milky white on the ground references, gradually getting worse and worse
as you proceed.

Just a word of advice.

PLEASE avoid responding to Mxmaniac. He is a resident troll.

Just look at his posting history and you will clearly see what I am
talking about. THANKS!!!

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Christopher Brian Colohan writes:

> AFAIK, the majority of GA planes have neither radar altimeters nor
> TCAS.

That is my impression, also. The Baron in my sim has a RA, and it
does in real life, too (from pictures I've seen). But it's an
expensive aircraft. In sims you always get the deluxe versions of
every aircraft, with all the options.

> Bad or marginal weather is usually pretty easy to spot from a
> distance.

I've heard apocryphal stories of sudden changes that produce fog from
nowhere, but I don't know how reliable those stories are.

> And if you want to fly more often in worse weather, first
> acquire the necessary training and a better plane.... Of course, this
> can cost big $$$...

[sigh] Everything costs big bucks in aviation. If automobiles were
like planes, most people would be driving go-karts to work.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > You'd be surprised.
>
> I'd be in danger. If there's nothing but fog outside the windows, how
> is peripheral vision going to help me with the instruments? Which
> instruments are in my peripheral vision?

You are cementing your reputation for being deliberately obtuse. I said
nothing about instruments being in your peripheral vision.

> > Less stressful to be sure. But you'd be amazed how different it can be
> > if you really can't see out the window and your (real not simulated)
> > life is on the line.
>
> No, I would not be amazed.

Don't be so sure. If you are ever in Southern California look me up and
we can put it the test.

rg

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
>> already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.
>
> Well, if you are equipped for instrument flight and rated for it and
> there isn't too much traffic, I wouldn't call it an emergency,
>

Oh brother. Not knowing anything about real IFR, the FARs, ATC
procedures, and the inherent safety problem (until you eventually
get your requested IFR clearance), your dogmatic statement like
the above is absurd.

F--

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> You are cementing your reputation for being deliberately obtuse. I said
> nothing about instruments being in your peripheral vision.

Well, then, explain how peripheral vision helps with instrument
flight. By definition, instrument flight involves only instruments.

> Don't be so sure. If you are ever in Southern California look me up and
> we can put it the test.

I've surprised people before. Most people assume that others are like
themselves, and that's a dangerous assumption.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > You are cementing your reputation for being deliberately obtuse. I said
> > nothing about instruments being in your peripheral vision.
>
> Well, then, explain how peripheral vision helps with instrument
> flight. By definition, instrument flight involves only instruments.

You may define it that way, but reality is not bound by your definition.

But your real problem is that you have discarded the context of the
conversation. (You do this a lot, and it's very annoying.) The context
in this case was that you are flying by reference to instruments in
non-IMC conditions. In such cases you get a lot of information from
your peripheral vision. In particular, in VMC you can tell if the plane
is still right-side-up even if your gaze is fixed on the panel. More
precisely, in VMC you CAN'T NOT TELL (parse that carefully) if the plane
is right-side up even if your gaze is fixed on the panel. The
processing of the information in your peripheral vision is done
subconsciously. If the plane starts to bank you can't help but notice.
This is the reason hoods are used for instrument training. (BTW, even
under a hood there are subtle sensory cues when you are in VMC that go
away in real IMC, like the ambient lighting or shadows moving across
your lap, that give you clues about your orientation.)

In the clouds all that goes completely away. If the plane starts to
bank there are no sensory cues at all that this is happening until the
bank becomes extremely, often unrecoverably, severe.

"No problem" you say, "I just keep my wings level by looking at the AI."
And yes, that true. But the first thing you will notice in reality is
that the AI gives you much coarser information than your peripheral
vision does. Again, this is hard to appreciate unless you actually
experience it (and you cannot experience it in your typical sim because
there is no peripheral visual stimulation). So you will quickly realize
that you have to pay a lot more attention to keep the wings level using
the AI than you did using your peripheral vision. But now you have
other things to worry about. It is not enough to keep the wings level,
you have to also keep the plane heading in the right direction. So you
have to move your gaze from the AI to the DG. While your gaze is
averted you are flying totally blind. Your fovea is not large enough to
fixate simultaneously on the AI and the DG (at least not in a real
plane) so you have to remember to look back at the AI.

OK, still no problem. So you look at the DG briefly, then come back to
the AI. But now you have to call ATC. To do that you have to find the
frequency on your chart. To do that you have to look away from the AI
again and look at the chart. Once again you are flying blind. But
reading a chart is much harder than reading a DG. You have to hunt
around to find the right place. Maybe you have to refold it. Maybe you
have to get out a flashlight (because you've just flown into a cloud and
it's now much darker than it was when you began). Suddenly you realize
that you haven't looked at the AI in a while. You glance up and it's
flopped over onto its side. You move the yoke to level the wings, and
try to calm down because you have just come close to death. You look at
the DG and find that you are off course because of the inadvertent bank.
You correct. Then you look down at the chart again to try again to find
the right ATC frequency to call.

By now several minutes have elapsed and you are no longer sure exactly
where you are (assuming you don't have a moving map GPS -- those gadgets
make life a whole lot easier). You were flying on instruments before
you flew into the cloud so you've already got your VORs tuned in, but
now you have to twiddle the OBS to find your cross-radial. Once again
you have to take your eyes away from the AI. You twiddle the knob and
center the needle. Back to the AI, then you have to look down at your
chart again to figure out where you actually are based on that
information.

Now... how long has it been since you looked at the altimeter? Oh ****,
in all this time you suddenly realize you've lost 2000 feet! The threat
of actual real-life death looms again as you realize that you are no
longer above the terrain. Where exactly are you? You still haven't
figured that out yet. OK, no problem, just push in the throttle and
climb. Look at the chart again...

Now you're starting to get a little freaked out because in this game if
you lose you can't just hit the reset button. Have you remembered to
apply right rudder? Are you watching your airspeed? Where the hell are
you? And you still haven't found the frequency to contact ATC. And you
haven't looked at the turn coordinator even once, so if your AI flopped
over because your vacuum pump failed and you were following the scenario
above then you're dead. Real-life dead, not simulator dead.

And then there's turbulence. And there are a couple of other things
I've left out too because this post is already way too long.

When the stakes are high things are different.

> > Don't be so sure. If you are ever in Southern California look me up and
> > we can put it the test.
>
> I've surprised people before. Most people assume that others are like
> themselves, and that's a dangerous assumption.

Come to LA and we will see.

rg

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Christopher Brian Colohan writes:
>
>> AFAIK, the majority of GA planes have neither radar altimeters nor
>> TCAS.
>
> That is my impression, also. The Baron in my sim has a RA, and it
> does in real life, too (from pictures I've seen). But it's an
> expensive aircraft. In sims you always get the deluxe versions of
> every aircraft, with all the options.
>
>> Bad or marginal weather is usually pretty easy to spot from a
>> distance.
>
> I've heard apocryphal stories of sudden changes that produce fog from
> nowhere, but I don't know how reliable those stories are.
>
>> And if you want to fly more often in worse weather, first
>> acquire the necessary training and a better plane.... Of course, this
>> can cost big $$$...
>
> [sigh] Everything costs big bucks in aviation. If automobiles were
> like planes, most people would be driving go-karts to work.
>
If you had studied weather at all ( which is part of your training as a
pilot ) you would know that fog does not come out of nowhere but is a
function of temperature/dew point spread and is fairly easy to predict.
While predicting the exact temp/dew point can be difficult, predicting
that the conditions are conducive to the creation of fog is not, so
therefor it does not come out of nowhere.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> If you had studied weather at all ( which is part of your training as a
> pilot ) you would know that fog does not come out of nowhere but is a
> function of temperature/dew point spread and is fairly easy to predict.

Temperatures can change suddenly, especially in moving air. Sharp
gradients in temperature can exist, also.

> While predicting the exact temp/dew point can be difficult, predicting
> that the conditions are conducive to the creation of fog is not, so
> therefor it does not come out of nowhere.

A problem with this is that conditions cannot be measured everywhere,
and local conditions may be different from the measured conditions.

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

[A Lieberma]

John Theune > wrote in news:pSnah.11768$LH2.11383
@trndny04:

> If you had studied weather at all ( which is part of your training as a
> pilot ) you would know that fog does not come out of nowhere but is a
> function of temperature/dew point spread and is fairly easy to predict.
> While predicting the exact temp/dew point can be difficult, predicting
> that the conditions are conducive to the creation of fog is not, so
> therefor it does not come out of nowhere.

Hey John,

Not sure if you are aware of Mxmaniac's trolling habits. He only plays
MSFS, and puts on an act of flying a plane. He has no intention of using
the valuable experiences we share.

You may want to save the time of your responses to those that really
appreciate your time. While Mx does post good questions, his response are
not learning conducive, but more along of combative. Check his posting
history and you will see.

And yes, you are so right, fog is not that difficult to predict :-). They
just tend to blow the forecast of "low level flying fog" AKA stratiform
clouds here where I live *smile*. If there is a forecast of fog here,
generally that is spot on.

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> More precisely, in VMC you CAN'T NOT TELL (parse
> that carefully) if the plane is right-side up even if your gaze is
> fixed on the panel.

Hey Ron,

Did you mean IMC in the above sentence?

> "No problem" you say, "I just keep my wings level by looking at the
> AI." And yes, that true. But the first thing you will notice in
> reality is that the AI gives you much coarser information than your
> peripheral vision does. Again, this is hard to appreciate unless you
> actually experience it (and you cannot experience it in your typical
> sim because there is no peripheral visual stimulation).

You are wasting your time Ron.

I have been this route with Mx. Look me up in Google with the buzz word of
leans. According to Mx, he suffers leans looking at a screen of a
computer.

So needless to say, it would be better served if you reply to those that
really do appreciate the value of your time.

Allen

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/26/06 14:39, A Lieberma wrote:
> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
>> More precisely, in VMC you CAN'T NOT TELL (parse
>> that carefully) if the plane is right-side up even if your gaze is
>> fixed on the panel.
>
> Hey Ron,
>
> Did you mean IMC in the above sentence?

Hey Allan, did you miss the "parse that carefully" ;-)

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > More precisely, in VMC you CAN'T NOT TELL (parse
> > that carefully) if the plane is right-side up even if your gaze is
> > fixed on the panel.
>
> Hey Ron,
>
> Did you mean IMC in the above sentence?

No. Read it carefully (especially the part where it says to read it
carefully ;-)

> > "No problem" you say, "I just keep my wings level by looking at the
> > AI." And yes, that true. But the first thing you will notice in
> > reality is that the AI gives you much coarser information than your
> > peripheral vision does. Again, this is hard to appreciate unless you
> > actually experience it (and you cannot experience it in your typical
> > sim because there is no peripheral visual stimulation).
>
> You are wasting your time Ron.

Could be, but it's my time to waste.

rg

[A Lieberma]

Mark Hansen > wrote in news:12mk6dhjdiem866
@corp.supernews.com:

>>> More precisely, in VMC you CAN'T NOT TELL (parse
>>> that carefully) if the plane is right-side up even if your gaze is
>>> fixed on the panel.
>>
>> Hey Ron,
>>
>> Did you mean IMC in the above sentence?
>
> Hey Allan, did you miss the "parse that carefully" ;-)

Must have Mark in my speed reading ways :-))

Allen

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Garret" > wrote

> Could be, but it's my time to waste.

Sigh.

It looks like MX will be here for a long time.

Say goodbye to a formerly good group. It's going down the tubes, I'm afraid.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote
>
> > Could be, but it's my time to waste.
>
> Sigh.

Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Is there someone putting a gun
to your head and forcing you to read MX's threads?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article <L6tah.8013$7a2.3585@trndny06>,
John Theune > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > John Theune writes:
> >
> >> If you had studied weather at all ( which is part of your training as a
> >> pilot ) you would know that fog does not come out of nowhere but is a
> >> function of temperature/dew point spread and is fairly easy to predict.
> >
> > Temperatures can change suddenly, especially in moving air. Sharp
> > gradients in temperature can exist, also.
> >
> >> While predicting the exact temp/dew point can be difficult, predicting
> >> that the conditions are conducive to the creation of fog is not, so
> >> therefor it does not come out of nowhere.
> >
> > A problem with this is that conditions cannot be measured everywhere,
> > and local conditions may be different from the measured conditions.
> >
> and one of the standard instruments in a plane is a outside air
> temperature gage. if you think the conditions are close enough to be a
> worry then you monitor the outside air temp so you don't get surprised.

I have to come to MX's defense on this one. Just a few days ago I was
flying a practice approach into CMA. The weather forecast was for it to
remain clear well into the evening, the current ATIS said sky clear, but
in fact there was a broken layer at about 1500 feet. We very nearly
were not able to fly the missed in legal VFR conditions. I had to
abandon my plan to fly another practice approach into CMA and go to BUR
instead.

Later I landed at SMO in clear conditions, and took off about ten
minutes later (didn't even shut the engine down) and had to dodge clouds
building up at about 1000 feet.

Clouds/fog can occasionally form rapidly and unexpectedly.

rg

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> If you had studied weather at all ( which is part of your training as a
>> pilot ) you would know that fog does not come out of nowhere but is a
>> function of temperature/dew point spread and is fairly easy to predict.
>
> Temperatures can change suddenly, especially in moving air. Sharp
> gradients in temperature can exist, also.
>
>> While predicting the exact temp/dew point can be difficult, predicting
>> that the conditions are conducive to the creation of fog is not, so
>> therefor it does not come out of nowhere.
>
> A problem with this is that conditions cannot be measured everywhere,
> and local conditions may be different from the measured conditions.
>
and one of the standard instruments in a plane is a outside air
temperature gage. if you think the conditions are close enough to be a
worry then you monitor the outside air temp so you don't get surprised.

[Kev]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ron Garret" > wrote
> > Could be, but it's my time to waste.
>
> Sigh.
> It looks like MX will be here for a long time.

I know you have basically good intentions, but this is Usenet. No one
can stop anyone from posting, nor should anyone even try. To think
otherwise is to invite great heartburn. Sooner or later we all learn
this lesson.

> Say goodbye to a formerly good group. It's going down the tubes, I'm afraid.

And not in any small part because of a new attempt at McCarthyism. As
both a military and usenet veteran, I abhor the personal attacks and
attempts to restrict freedom of speech to anyone who disagrees with
those tactics. Especially when it's so easy to killfile people
instead.

Easy option: take all this pent up energy and put it into creating and
hosting a registration-only pilot's forum. That way, you can have all
the control you need or want. Seriously. If anyone gives you
trouble, you can censor them. You could host pictures, etc, too.
There are lots of cheap host sites and easy forum software. If you're
right about what people want, then you'll have lots of visitors.

Wishing you luck, Kev

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > The weather forecast was for it
> > to remain clear well into the evening, the current ATIS said sky
> > clear, but in fact there was a broken layer at about 1500 feet. We
> > very nearly were not able to fly the missed in legal VFR conditions.
> > I had to abandon my plan to fly another practice approach into CMA and
> > go to BUR instead.
>
> > Later I landed at SMO in clear conditions, and took off about ten
> > minutes later (didn't even shut the engine down) and had to dodge
> > clouds building up at about 1000 feet.
> >
> > Clouds/fog can occasionally form rapidly and unexpectedly.
>
> Forget the forecast, what was the temp / dew point before you launched?

I don't recall the actual numbers, but it wouldn't have made a
difference. The temp/DP readings are taken on the ground. A narrow
spread will predict fog, but a wide one will not necessarily preclude
clouds.

> Wouldn't take much to count on fog / cloud formation if you had a very
> small temp / dew point seperation. Had you looked at that, you probably
> would have had all you needed for fog / cloud expectancy.

Maybe. But maybe not. I'll try to pay more attention the next time it
happens.

> You say ATIS reported clear, yet your eyes say a broken layer about
> 1500???? What gives here?

ATIS is normally only updated every hour. When the current ATIS was
recorded it was clear. By the time I got there clouds had begun to form.

> Doesn't sound like the clouds / fog rapidly formed before you launched?

It doesn't? What does it sound like?

> In my short 6 years of flying, I have yet to encounter UNFORECASTED IFR
> visibilities after any of my weather briefings. YMMV.

Yes, the forecasts tend to be pretty good, at least here in SoCal. But
they are not perfect.

rg

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> The weather forecast was for it
> to remain clear well into the evening, the current ATIS said sky
> clear, but in fact there was a broken layer at about 1500 feet. We
> very nearly were not able to fly the missed in legal VFR conditions.
> I had to abandon my plan to fly another practice approach into CMA and
> go to BUR instead.

> Later I landed at SMO in clear conditions, and took off about ten
> minutes later (didn't even shut the engine down) and had to dodge
> clouds building up at about 1000 feet.
>
> Clouds/fog can occasionally form rapidly and unexpectedly.

Forget the forecast, what was the temp / dew point before you launched?
Wouldn't take much to count on fog / cloud formation if you had a very
small temp / dew point seperation. Had you looked at that, you probably
would have had all you needed for fog / cloud expectancy.

You say ATIS reported clear, yet your eyes say a broken layer about
1500???? What gives here?

Doesn't sound like the clouds / fog rapidly formed before you launched?

In my short 6 years of flying, I have yet to encounter UNFORECASTED IFR
visibilities after any of my weather briefings. YMMV.

Ceilings are a different issue, but the science of ceiling forecasts
probably are not as advanced, I dunno.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> OK, still no problem. So you look at the DG briefly, then come back to
> the AI. But now you have to call ATC. To do that you have to find the
> frequency on your chart. To do that you have to look away from the AI
> again and look at the chart. Once again you are flying blind. But
> reading a chart is much harder than reading a DG. You have to hunt
> around to find the right place. Maybe you have to refold it. Maybe you
> have to get out a flashlight (because you've just flown into a cloud and
> it's now much darker than it was when you began). Suddenly you realize
> that you haven't looked at the AI in a while. You glance up and it's
> flopped over onto its side. You move the yoke to level the wings, and
> try to calm down because you have just come close to death. You look at
> the DG and find that you are off course because of the inadvertent bank.
> You correct. Then you look down at the chart again to try again to find
> the right ATC frequency to call.

Now, why would the aircraft flop over on its side while you are
looking at the chart? Aren't you in straight and level flight? I
thought aircraft tended to stay in straight and level flight once
established there. So you might be in a lazy bank to one side or the
other, but you should be able to just correct it the next time you
look at the AI.

I share your reservations about the chart, which I have expressed here
before. But then I was told that it was no big deal to look at a
chart while flying. Now I'm being told the opposite. Which is right?

Supposedly some GPS units will provide the right frequencies.
Unfortunately, it seems to require so much knob twisting and button
pressing that I'm not sure it's more practical than a chart.

One option is to write down frequencies in advance. Center
frequencies don't change often, and Center could give you any other
frequencies you need, I presume.

> By now several minutes have elapsed and you are no longer sure exactly
> where you are (assuming you don't have a moving map GPS -- those gadgets
> make life a whole lot easier). You were flying on instruments before
> you flew into the cloud so you've already got your VORs tuned in, but
> now you have to twiddle the OBS to find your cross-radial. Once again
> you have to take your eyes away from the AI. You twiddle the knob and
> center the needle. Back to the AI, then you have to look down at your
> chart again to figure out where you actually are based on that
> information.

Yes, it's a lot of work, especially without the moving map. Seems
like instrument flight might be a good time to have a copilot (who
need not actually be a pilot, as long as he or she can read charts,
tune and talk on radios, etc.).

> Now... how long has it been since you looked at the altimeter? Oh ****,
> in all this time you suddenly realize you've lost 2000 feet!

Why are you in a 1000 fpm descent? What happened to straight and
level?

> The threat of actual real-life death looms again as you realize
> that you are no longer above the terrain.

You were flying at only 2000 feet AGL, in an untrimmed aircraft making
a descent of 1000 fpm?

In this case, the first job would be to stabilize the aircraft in
straight and level flight at a constant, safe altitude. Once it's
willing to hold that, you can start looking at your chart and working
the radios. If the aircraft is in the middle of a change in heading
or altitude when you enter IMC, you need to finish the maneuver and
resume straight and level flight before you try to read charts.
Presumably you have some idea of the height of terrain in the area,
and you make sure you're a few thousand feet above it, at an
appropriate VFR altitude for your heading (IFR altitude would place
you even with IFR traffic, which should probably be avoided until you
have ATC to provide separation).

> Where exactly are you? You still haven't figured that out yet.

Presumably you knew where you were before you entered IMC. At small
place speeds, you can't be too far away. If you were straight and
level when you entered IMC, you can estimate your position by dead
reckoning, and if your altitude is sufficient, you're clear of
terrain. Then you can look at the chart to see where you probably
are. Once you contact ATC, they can give you a pretty good fix as
well.

> OK, no problem, just push in the throttle and climb. Look at
> the chart again...

I wouldn't _just_ climb. I'd climb to what I know to be a safe
altitude in the area, and then stabilize the aircraft again. If there
were no mountains at 7500 feet before you entered IMC, there probably
still aren't even though you're in a cloud.

> Now you're starting to get a little freaked out because in this game if
> you lose you can't just hit the reset button.

You can't just do that in a sim, either.

> Have you remembered to apply right rudder?

Aren't you trimmed?

> Are you watching your airspeed?

Aren't you straight and level at a stable airspeed?

> Where the hell are you?

Didn't you know before you entered IMC? You probably are fairly close
to your previous position. Unless there's a mountain range nearby, or
a lot of IFR traffic, the skies should be safe, even if they are no
longer clear.

> And you still haven't found the frequency to contact ATC.

Personally, I'd already have the radios tuned to ATC, so that I could
just key the microphone and talk.

Some of what you are postulating assumes a fairly primitive
instrumentation on the aircraft and very little preparedness for the
possibility of low visibility. Keeping the radios appropriately tuned
whenever you have a spare moment in VMC would be a good idea, even if
you aren't in radio contact. Likewise, you need to know where you
are, even in VMC. Likewise, you need to keep your aircraft stable so
that it doesn't require constant attention just to maintain a heading,
altitude, and speed. And, finally, you need enough instruments to
allow you to control the situation less stressfully in IMC. The two
that spring immediately to mind are an autopilot and RNAV with a
moving map. These may be luxuries in the eyes of a VFR pilot, but
they are simple tools of the trade if you have to fly IFR.

> And you haven't looked at the turn coordinator even once,
> so if your AI flopped over because your vacuum pump failed
> and you were following the scenario above then you're dead.
> Real-life dead, not simulator dead.

The same thing will happen if the wings snap off. But neither a wing
nor an instrument failure are likely at the precise time that you just
happen to find yourself in IMC (although icing conditions could change
this). Pilots who die in IMC usually have fully functional
instruments.

> And then there's turbulence. And there are a couple of other things
> I've left out too because this post is already way too long.

Turbulence is a problem in itself, even in clear air.

> When the stakes are high things are different.

Agreed. But I do notice that much of what you are talking about here
can be avoided if you just prepare in advance. If you have complete
control of the situation before you find yourself stuck in poor
visibility, you're much more likely to retain control when IMC comes.

And above all, you must remain calm. Pilots die because they panic.
The workload may be heavy and unfamiliar, but it's a lot easier to
address with a cool head than it is when one is yielding to one's
darkest fears. Some people are better at staying calm than others.

> Come to LA and we will see.

Is LA often fogged in? That's a bad place to get stuck in IMC if
you're not used to it. Not only because of those mountains looming in
several directions, but simply because of the amount of traffic out
and about.

Nevertheless, Van Nuys is said to be the busiest GA airport in the
United States.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Did you mean IMC in the above sentence?

I doubt it. It only makes sense with VMC. He did say to parse it
carefully, which I did.

> So needless to say, it would be better served if you reply to those that
> really do appreciate the value of your time.

Which they will show by taking the time to read his words carefully.

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

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> and one of the standard instruments in a plane is a outside air
> temperature gage.

You need dry and wet bulb temperatures. And wind speed and air
pressure. You don't have all of these aboard an aircraft,
unfortunately. And you already have enough to do in the cockpit
without trying to predict the weather.

> if you think the conditions are close enough to be a
> worry then you monitor the outside air temp so you don't
> get surprised.

I can see this for icing. Figuring out the possibility of low
visibility from dry bulb temperature alone is more challenging.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberma writes:

> Forget the forecast, what was the temp / dew point before you launched?
> Wouldn't take much to count on fog / cloud formation if you had a very
> small temp / dew point seperation. Had you looked at that, you probably
> would have had all you needed for fog / cloud expectancy.

Which instrument in the cockpit gives you the dew point?

> You say ATIS reported clear, yet your eyes say a broken layer about
> 1500???? What gives here?

ATIS was wrong, or was not for exactly the same spot on the planet's
surface.

> Doesn't sound like the clouds / fog rapidly formed before you launched?

Sometimes you can watch clouds form before your eyes, both on the
ground and in the air.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Morgans" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron Garret" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Could be, but it's my time to waste.
> >>
> >> Sigh.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Is there someone putting a gun
> > to your head and forcing you to read MX's threads?
>
> If I block him, and you respond, I still end up reading his thread.

You poor dear.

rg

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron Garret" > wrote
>>
>> > Could be, but it's my time to waste.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Is there someone putting a gun
> to your head and forcing you to read MX's threads?

If I block him, and you respond, I still end up reading his thread.

Oh, forget it. You don't seem to understand........

Anything.
--
Jim in NC

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> ...
> One option is to write down frequencies in advance. Center
> frequencies don't change often...

No they don't change much, and if they do, it's irrelevant to
real IFR, and yes the info is available as mere footnote on an
IFR enroute chart but often hard to peg in space where you're at
in cloud or VMC, but a real IFR pilot needn't be concerned at
all. Amongst all your argumentative drivel in just this one
post, don't you get it yet that you're talking to real IFR pilots
and ATC controllers here who consider the issues of real IFR far
from and usually much simpler than your imaginary, self-centered,
wasted-life, simulated world? Others forgive me; useless response.

F--

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > OK, still no problem. So you look at the DG briefly, then come back to
> > the AI. But now you have to call ATC. To do that you have to find the
> > frequency on your chart. To do that you have to look away from the AI
> > again and look at the chart. Once again you are flying blind. But
> > reading a chart is much harder than reading a DG. You have to hunt
> > around to find the right place. Maybe you have to refold it. Maybe you
> > have to get out a flashlight (because you've just flown into a cloud and
> > it's now much darker than it was when you began). Suddenly you realize
> > that you haven't looked at the AI in a while. You glance up and it's
> > flopped over onto its side. You move the yoke to level the wings, and
> > try to calm down because you have just come close to death. You look at
> > the DG and find that you are off course because of the inadvertent bank.
> > You correct. Then you look down at the chart again to try again to find
> > the right ATC frequency to call.
>
> Now, why would the aircraft flop over on its side while you are
> looking at the chart? Aren't you in straight and level flight? I
> thought aircraft tended to stay in straight and level flight once
> established there.

It tends to, but it's not a perfect tendency. Real airplanes are rarely
perfectly trimmed; they will have a roll bias one way or the other.
Even if the plane is perfectly trimmed, fuel imbalance will eventually
put it out of trim again (especially in a low wing where you can't draw
off both tanks simultaneously). In practice you can't count on a plane
staying level by itself for more than a few minutes. (But that's still
better than helicopters where if you take your hands off the stick for a
couple of seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.)

Some planes have rudder and/or aileron trims, but many don't. And even
those that do, it's very hard to get it perfect. And even if you do it
rarely stays that way for long.

> So you might be in a lazy bank to one side or the
> other, but you should be able to just correct it the next time you
> look at the AI.

Yes. But that's the point: in IMC you have to look and in VMC you don't
(because your peripheral vision will notice if you roll). And by the
time you look you could be in a pretty severe bank. Learning to look at
the AI "often enough" and without fail is a skill that can be
surprisingly difficult to acquire.

> I share your reservations about the chart, which I have expressed here
> before. But then I was told that it was no big deal to look at a
> chart while flying. Now I'm being told the opposite. Which is right?

It's a bigger deal in IMC than in VMC. But the point is not so much
that it's a big deal as that in VMC you don't have to actively think
about keeping the plane level. If the plane starts to bank in VMC you
will know. Not necessarily so in IMC.

> Supposedly some GPS units will provide the right frequencies.

Yep, GPS makes life easier in many ways. With a GPS and an autopilot,
flying a real plane can be not so much different from playing a video
game. But if you want to be safe you have to be able to fly the plane
without them because they can break.

> Unfortunately, it seems to require so much knob twisting and button
> pressing that I'm not sure it's more practical than a chart.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

> One option is to write down frequencies in advance.

That would be an unusual bit of foresight. 121.5 is also an option.

> Yes, it's a lot of work, especially without the moving map. Seems
> like instrument flight might be a good time to have a copilot (who
> need not actually be a pilot, as long as he or she can read charts,
> tune and talk on radios, etc.).

That can help a lot too.

> > Now... how long has it been since you looked at the altimeter? Oh ****,
> > in all this time you suddenly realize you've lost 2000 feet!
>
> Why are you in a 1000 fpm descent? What happened to straight and
> level?

Like I said before, it is very hard to achieve perfect trim, and even if
you achieve it, it rarely stays that way for long. The most common
cause of altitude excursions are up-and-down drafts, which are common in
IMC. Fuel burn can change the CG and hence the pitch trim too.

> > The threat of actual real-life death looms again as you realize
> > that you are no longer above the terrain.
>
> You were flying at only 2000 feet AGL, in an untrimmed aircraft making
> a descent of 1000 fpm?

Where I fly there are mountains. You can be as high as 10,000' AGL
where you are and still not be clear of terrain just a few miles (and
minutes) away.

> In this case, the first job would be to stabilize the aircraft in
> straight and level flight at a constant, safe altitude. Once it's
> willing to hold that, you can start looking at your chart and working
> the radios. If the aircraft is in the middle of a change in heading
> or altitude when you enter IMC, you need to finish the maneuver and
> resume straight and level flight before you try to read charts.
> Presumably you have some idea of the height of terrain in the area,
> and you make sure you're a few thousand feet above it, at an
> appropriate VFR altitude for your heading (IFR altitude would place
> you even with IFR traffic, which should probably be avoided until you
> have ATC to provide separation).

Very good. You might survive.

> > Where exactly are you? You still haven't figured that out yet.
>
> Presumably you knew where you were before you entered IMC. At small
> place speeds, you can't be too far away. If you were straight and
> level when you entered IMC, you can estimate your position by dead
> reckoning, and if your altitude is sufficient, you're clear of
> terrain. Then you can look at the chart to see where you probably
> are. Once you contact ATC, they can give you a pretty good fix as
> well.

Yep.


> > OK, no problem, just push in the throttle and climb. Look at
> > the chart again...
>
> I wouldn't _just_ climb. I'd climb to what I know to be a safe
> altitude in the area, and then stabilize the aircraft again. If there
> were no mountains at 7500 feet before you entered IMC, there probably
> still aren't even though you're in a cloud.

Very good armchair flying. But writing it down and actually *doing* it
when your life is on the line are two different things.


> > Now you're starting to get a little freaked out because in this game if
> > you lose you can't just hit the reset button.
>
> You can't just do that in a sim, either.

Then you need a better sim.

> > Have you remembered to apply right rudder?
>
> Aren't you trimmed?

For straight and level flight. But now you're climbing so there's
P-factor. (Once again you've dropped the context. I've already told
you once how annoying that is. If you do it again I will assume that
all the people claiming you are nothing but a troll are correct and stop
responding to you.)

> > Are you watching your airspeed?
>
> Aren't you straight and level at a stable airspeed?

No, you are climbing above the terrain. Pay attention.

> > Where the hell are you?
>
> Didn't you know before you entered IMC?

Yes, but now some time has passed and you have become disoriented
because you've been dealing with other things.

> > And you still haven't found the frequency to contact ATC.
>
> Personally, I'd already have the radios tuned to ATC, so that I could
> just key the microphone and talk.
>
> Some of what you are postulating assumes a fairly primitive
> instrumentation on the aircraft and very little preparedness for the
> possibility of low visibility.

Which is a common situation during VFR flight.

> Keeping the radios appropriately tuned
> whenever you have a spare moment in VMC would be a good idea, even if
> you aren't in radio contact.

Indeed. Avoiding IMC altogether (unless you are on an IFR flight plan)
is an even better idea.

> Likewise, you need to know where you
> are, even in VMC. Likewise, you need to keep your aircraft stable so
> that it doesn't require constant attention just to maintain a heading,
> altitude, and speed.

Yes, but those things are much easier when you can see and much harder
when you cannot.

> And, finally, you need enough instruments to
> allow you to control the situation less stressfully in IMC. The two
> that spring immediately to mind are an autopilot and RNAV with a
> moving map. These may be luxuries in the eyes of a VFR pilot, but
> they are simple tools of the trade if you have to fly IFR.

Nowadays perhaps. Not when I was learning to fly. But in any case, I
thought the topic at hand is why people get into trouble during
inadvertent encounters with IMC. The reason is that for one reason or
another they are not prepared, and the situation very quickly overwhelms
them. Then they lose control of the airplane, or they lose track of
where they are and hit a mountain. Of course, this is not inevitable.
But when it happens that is usually why.

> > And you haven't looked at the turn coordinator even once,
> > so if your AI flopped over because your vacuum pump failed
> > and you were following the scenario above then you're dead.
> > Real-life dead, not simulator dead.
>
> The same thing will happen if the wings snap off.

Structural failure is rare and unrecoverable. Vacuum pump failures are
common and recoverable.

> But neither a wing
> nor an instrument failure are likely at the precise time that you just
> happen to find yourself in IMC (although icing conditions could change
> this).

The vacuum pump doesn't have to fail at that precise moment. It might
have failed a while ago, but you didn't notice because you were too busy
looking out the window at the scenery that was visible until a moment
ago.

> Pilots who die in IMC usually have fully functional instruments.

That is another way of saying that pilots who die in IMC sometimes have
faulty instruments. And your point would be...?

> > And then there's turbulence. And there are a couple of other things
> > I've left out too because this post is already way too long.
>
> Turbulence is a problem in itself, even in clear air.

But it is more of a problem in IMC because you don't have the benefit of
your peripheral vision telling you if you start to roll.

> > When the stakes are high things are different.
>
> Agreed. But I do notice that much of what you are talking about here
> can be avoided if you just prepare in advance.

Yes indeed. But that's the thing: most people flying VFR are not
prepared.

> If you have complete
> control of the situation before you find yourself stuck in poor
> visibility, you're much more likely to retain control when IMC comes.

Yep.

> And above all, you must remain calm. Pilots die because they panic.

Yep.

> The workload may be heavy and unfamiliar, but it's a lot easier to
> address with a cool head than it is when one is yielding to one's
> darkest fears. Some people are better at staying calm than others.

Yep.

> > Come to LA and we will see.
>
> Is LA often fogged in?

Yep. :-) It's very common in late spring and early summer when the
jet-stream moves north and the marine layer from the ocean moves inland.
We call it "June gloom" and there's a local joke that you can pre-record
the weather forecast during that period: "Early morning low clouds and
fog burning off to hazy sunshine by mid-afternoon."

But why do you care about fog? Do you really want to fly in fog
(keeping in mind that fog by definition is always close to the ground)?

> That's a bad place to get stuck in IMC if
> you're not used to it. Not only because of those mountains looming in
> several directions, but simply because of the amount of traffic out
> and about.

It can be challenging. But I hear the northeast is worse.

> Nevertheless, Van Nuys is said to be the busiest GA airport in the
> United States.

That's what I hear :-)

rg

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

nice description.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

A,

> Not sure if you are aware of Mxmaniac's trolling habits. He only plays
> MSFS, and puts on an act of flying a plane. He has no intention of using
> the valuable experiences we share.
>

And the answer John got from MX is the perfect example. Now he's a weather
expert, too. But remember, it's all us kiddies getting it wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans[_2_]]

I think I'll start a list of names that responds to MX, in any way other than
combatively.

That way, some day, I can sit back and look at the names and laugh at them, for
being such fools.

1.) Ron Garret

[Jay Beckman]

Ron, et al...

I've been avoiding our little Albatross, but since he insists that the
transition from VMC/VFR to IMC/IFR is so easy, here's some data for him to
chew on:

- Pilots who fly inadvertantly into IMC without already working a proper
scan will (on average) lose control in approximately 90 seconds.
- 72% of Inadvertant IMC encounters end in a fatality.
- 40% of the pilots who make (made) up the above 72% are (were) Instrument
Rated.

This data is straight from the ASF (Air Safety Foundation.)

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> I think I'll start a list of names that responds to MX, in any way
> other than combatively.
>
> That way, some day, I can sit back and look at the names and laugh at
> them, for being such fools.
>
> 1.) Ron Garret

Good thread....

Then we do not reply to the fools as well and take back the group the way
it was.... and advise newbies to avoid these folks.

Allen

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
> instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
> and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
> switch to IFR in flight,

*** I do it all the time. Coming home to the Bay Area from Fresno,
it's common
that the Valley will be severe clear, but the Bay Area will have some
clouds. It's
a pain in the butt to file IFR from the uncontrolled field in Fresno,
so I do it like this:

Immediately on takeoff from Fresno, I get flight following. Coming
up the Valley,
I ask to leave the frequency and talk to Flight Service on 122.2MHz. I
get a weather
update from them, and if there is so much as a hint of clouds in the
Bay Area, I file
and IFR flight plan with them, beginning at the next waypoint on my GPS
flight plan.
The GPS tells me when I'll be there ( ETE ), and I just make my best
guess as to
how long it'll take. Then I return to ATC.

About 10 miles from my waypoint, I mention to ATC that I would like
to activate
my IFR flight plan starting at ***. They give me the new clearance, I
write it down and
immediately turn to the new heading and altitude. Poof, I'm IFR.

If ATC isn't busy it's sometimes possible to file the IFR flight
plan in the air directly
with them. One common example is - you're flying along over a cloud
layer and
you'd like to land the airplane. So you ask ATC for an approach. I
get the feeling that
it's easier to get a single approach out of ATC directly than a whole
flight plan.

- Jerry Kaidor

[A Lieberma]

wrote in news:1164646255.242808.209320
@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

> *** I do it all the time. Coming home to the Bay Area from Fresno,
> it's common
> that the Valley will be severe clear, but the Bay Area will have some
> clouds. It's
> a pain in the butt to file IFR from the uncontrolled field in Fresno,
> so I do it like this:

It's no biggie to get an ATC clearance from FSS? I've done this at 2G2 and
get an ATC clearance from FSS. 2G2 is below the Bravo airspace of
Pittsburg.

Just a headsup Jerry, you are dealing with a person who plays games on MSFS
and not a real aircraft. This itself is no biggie, but he is a troll and
does not give you the time of the day on your responses and question your
real world experiences as if we live in the simulated world.

While his questions are good, the intentions are questionable. Just look
back on the responses from Mxmaniac and you will clearly see what I am
talking about.

Allen

[fromTheShadows[_3_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> While his questions are good, the intentions are questionable.
>

If his questions are good then what bearing does the intention have? If
you take such exception to Mx's eccentric personality then just direct
your answers to the many others who are undoubtably interested. I for
one would have liked to see some answers to his ATC questions, but you
guys made damn sure that wasn't going to happen. I think the anti-Mx
brigade are doing considerable harm whilst imagining they are doing
good, and 'Jim in NC' in particular is starting to look ridiculous.

Apologies in advance to those likely to take offence at a comment from a
mere sim pilot.

[A Lieberma]

fromTheShadows > wrote in news:ekf7sd$8in$1
@aioe.server.aioe.org:

> If his questions are good then what bearing does the intention have?

Intentions are everything.

I'd rather put my time and effort to those that will truly use the
information rather then sit behind a keyboard and make it like the MSFS
game is reality.

As you will see from my postings, not only will I add to the responders on
topic, but I am going to advise them they are dealing with a troll.

If it talks, walks and quacks like a troll, it is a troll.

If you have questions, post away. Don't look to Mxmaniac.

If it's a sim question, post to the sim newsgroups. I am sure there are
pilots that monitor that group.

Also, don't expect pilots to treat simulation the same as the real deal.
IT IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE!!!!

IF you are in the same simulated world that Mx lives in, then hopefully the
real world pilots will treat you just the same.

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > It tends to, but it's not a perfect tendency. Real airplanes are rarely
> > perfectly trimmed; they will have a roll bias one way or the other.
>
> Still ... how long before they "flop over" from straight and level
> flight in trim?

It depends. Seconds to minutes depending on how good the trim was to
begin with. Definitely not tens of minutes.

> > In practice you can't count on a plane
> > staying level by itself for more than a few minutes.
>
> I think that probably depends a great deal on the plane.

It depends on the plane whether you have seconds or minutes. No plane
stays level by itself for more than a few minutes.

> > Some planes have rudder and/or aileron trims, but many don't. And even
> > those that do, it's very hard to get it perfect. And even if you do it
> > rarely stays that way for long.
>
> Granted, but it seems implausible that it changes so quickly and
> dramatically that the plane flips over the moment you avert your eyes
> or hands.

I never said it did.

> > Yes. But that's the point: in IMC you have to look and in VMC you don't
> > (because your peripheral vision will notice if you roll).
>
> Well, in IMC you have nothing to see outside the window, so you have
> more time to look at the attitude indicator.

You're missing the point. Yes, you having nothing to see out the
window, but you also have to look at other things (other instruments,
radios, charts). When you do you have to take your eyes off the AI.
When you do that, absent the peripheral vision cues you have in VMC
whether or not you are actually looking out the window, the plane can
(and often will) roll without you realizing it.

> > And by the
> > time you look you could be in a pretty severe bank. Learning to look at
> > the AI "often enough" and without fail is a skill that can be
> > surprisingly difficult to acquire.
>
> Maybe, but a VFR pilot who fails to develop this skill quickly in IMC
> has a serious problem. I don't see any way around that.

Yes, that would be precisely the point I am trying to make.

> > Yep, GPS makes life easier in many ways. With a GPS and an autopilot,
> > flying a real plane can be not so much different from playing a video
> > game. But if you want to be safe you have to be able to fly the plane
> > without them because they can break.
>
> I agree. It's highly unlikely that the GPS would break at the same
> moment that you enter IMC, but one should try to be prepared for
> anything. In any case, pilots were handling IMC successfully long
> before GPS came along.

Yes, but not without a great deal of training and practice IN IMC or
under the hood. You can't practice in VMC without a view limiting
device because you can't eliminate the subconscious processing of
peripheral vision information no matter how hard you try.

Actually, simulator pilots might have an easier time in IMC than real
pilots because flying a sim is actually a lot more like IFR than it is
like VFR. It would make an interesting experiment.

> > That would be an unusual bit of foresight. 121.5 is also an option.
>
> Unusual?

Yes.

> The books I've read seem to recommend it strongly.

There are many recommendations in books that people don't often follow.

> > That can help a lot too.
>
> A copilot with a cool head can help even more psychologically. A
> crisis often seems less serious when you're not alone.

Or it can make it worse when you realize that you now have two lives in
your hands and not just one. It depends a lot on who the other person
is. If your co-pilot is a CFII that can be really handy. If it's your
girlfriend and she's screaming "We're gonna diiiiiieeeeeee!!!" at the
top of her lungs that can make things worse.

> > Like I said before, it is very hard to achieve perfect trim, and even if
> > you achieve it, it rarely stays that way for long.
>
> Well, how long is long? How long before the aircraft flips over?

A few seconds to a few minutes depending on how good your trim is.

> > The most common cause of altitude excursions are up-and-down drafts,
> > which are common in IMC. Fuel burn can change the CG and hence
> > the pitch trim too.
>
> The former shouldn't be too dangerous if you're high enough above the
> ground

If you're flying over flat terrain that is true. If you are near
mountains it's not.

> > Where I fly there are mountains. You can be as high as 10,000' AGL
> > where you are and still not be clear of terrain just a few miles (and
> > minutes) away.
>
> Mountains are a bit of a special case.

Not around here.

> > Very good. You might survive.
>
> Well, that's what the books say.

Books can only take you so far. Come to LA.

> > For straight and level flight. But now you're climbing so there's
> > P-factor.
>
> OK, so climb and retrim.

Yes, it sounds simple in theory. In practice it is not. Remember, you
are climbing because you forgot to monitor the altimeter and have just
realized that you are in danger of hitting nearby mountains. You are no
longer at the top of your game. In such a circumstance and in the
absence of the usual visual cues, it is very easy to forget to apply
right rudder in a climb and end up in a power-on stall and spin. (Does
your sim setup even have rudder pedals, or do you fly by mouse? If the
latter, you are in for a lot of surprises the first time you get into a
real plane.)

> > No, you are climbing above the terrain. Pay attention.
>
> But you chose to climb.

You can consider it a choice only if you are willing to risk death by
staying where you are. Of course, if you are willing to die then flight
in IMC is really a cakewalk.

> Obviously,
> if you start maneuvering, you're going to have to devote a lot of
> attention to flying. Until you return to straight and level flight,
> you're going to have a lot less time to do other things.

Yes, that is the point. If you are not practiced, the situation can
easily get to the point where the time it takes you to do the things you
have to do exceeds the time available to do them.

> If you already know that you are at a safe altitude, there's no reason
> to climb.

That's the third time you've dropped the context, and this is the third
and last time I am going to bring it to your attention. One more time
and we're done. (Why do you do that, by the way? I really want to
know. Is it deliberate? What are you hoping to achieve? Do you have
some mental deficiency that prevents you from keeping track of context?)

> > Structural failure is rare and unrecoverable. Vacuum pump failures are
> > common and recoverable.
>
> How common is that?

I don't have numbers handy, but it's quite common. Anything with moving
parts (vacuum pumps, mechanical gyros, engines) can pretty much be
counted on to fail regularly.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> It tends to, but it's not a perfect tendency. Real airplanes are rarely
> perfectly trimmed; they will have a roll bias one way or the other.

Still ... how long before they "flop over" from straight and level
flight in trim?

> In practice you can't count on a plane
> staying level by itself for more than a few minutes.

I think that probably depends a great deal on the plane.

> Some planes have rudder and/or aileron trims, but many don't. And even
> those that do, it's very hard to get it perfect. And even if you do it
> rarely stays that way for long.

Granted, but it seems implausible that it changes so quickly and
dramatically that the plane flips over the moment you avert your eyes
or hands.

> Yes. But that's the point: in IMC you have to look and in VMC you don't
> (because your peripheral vision will notice if you roll).

Well, in IMC you have nothing to see outside the window, so you have
more time to look at the attitude indicator.

> And by the
> time you look you could be in a pretty severe bank. Learning to look at
> the AI "often enough" and without fail is a skill that can be
> surprisingly difficult to acquire.

Maybe, but a VFR pilot who fails to develop this skill quickly in IMC
has a serious problem. I don't see any way around that.

> It's a bigger deal in IMC than in VMC. But the point is not so much
> that it's a big deal as that in VMC you don't have to actively think
> about keeping the plane level. If the plane starts to bank in VMC you
> will know. Not necessarily so in IMC.

Maybe. It depends on your scanning habits and other factors, I
suppose.

> Yep, GPS makes life easier in many ways. With a GPS and an autopilot,
> flying a real plane can be not so much different from playing a video
> game. But if you want to be safe you have to be able to fly the plane
> without them because they can break.

I agree. It's highly unlikely that the GPS would break at the same
moment that you enter IMC, but one should try to be prepared for
anything. In any case, pilots were handling IMC successfully long
before GPS came along.

> That would be an unusual bit of foresight. 121.5 is also an option.

Unusual? The books I've read seem to recommend it strongly. I've
done it a few times, but only for VORs, as it's hard to look up those
frequencies while flying. The nature of the simulations I run makes
it easy to find ATC frequencies. Also, the GPS does provide those
frequencies as well, so they are available in real life, although, as
I've said, I find the GPS manipulation a bit awkward, and it would be
even more so while stuck in IMC.

> That can help a lot too.

A copilot with a cool head can help even more psychologically. A
crisis often seems less serious when you're not alone.

> Like I said before, it is very hard to achieve perfect trim, and even if
> you achieve it, it rarely stays that way for long.

Well, how long is long? How long before the aircraft flips over?

> The most common cause of altitude excursions are up-and-down drafts,
> which are common in IMC. Fuel burn can change the CG and hence
> the pitch trim too.

The former shouldn't be too dangerous if you're high enough above the
ground (depending on its violence, of course). The latter happens
very gradually.

> Where I fly there are mountains. You can be as high as 10,000' AGL
> where you are and still not be clear of terrain just a few miles (and
> minutes) away.

Mountains are a bit of a special case. I'd be tempted to get as high
as possible if I were stuck in IMC in the mountains. Of course, in
some cases, you just cannot get high enough.

> Very good. You might survive.

Well, that's what the books say. Stay calm, keep the aircraft
straight and level, make sure it's trimmed to stay like that, make
sure your altitude is adequate to clear terrain by a generous margin.
Then you can start thinking about navigating out of your predicament,
including a call to ATC. Planes don't magically misbehave just
because you can't see anything outside the window. If they are
willing to fly and behave in clear weather, they are willing to do the
same when it's all mist outside. Stay calm, fly the plane, navigate,
and then communicate.

> Very good armchair flying. But writing it down and actually *doing* it
> when your life is on the line are two different things.

Yes, but that kind of stress affects different people in different
ways. Some people panic and lose it, and die. Others become
extremely determined and intent upon surviving, and they live. To
some extent, one can discipline oneself to behave in either direction.

> Then you need a better sim.

In simulation, any type of reset is cheating. You don't learn
anything if you give up every time things get tough.

> For straight and level flight. But now you're climbing so there's
> P-factor.

OK, so climb and retrim.

> No, you are climbing above the terrain. Pay attention.

But you chose to climb. You weren't doing that initially. Obviously,
if you start maneuvering, you're going to have to devote a lot of
attention to flying. Until you return to straight and level flight,
you're going to have a lot less time to do other things.

If you already know that you are at a safe altitude, there's no reason
to climb.

> Yes, but now some time has passed and you have become disoriented
> because you've been dealing with other things.

Well, are you climbing, or are you navigating, or are you talking on
the radio, or what? You can't do it all at once. You have to sort
out what to do, and when, or you're in trouble.

> Which is a common situation during VFR flight.

It may be common, but it is not a _necessary_ condition of VFR flight.
You can fly VFR and still be prepared for possible problems.

I'd feel pretty nervous flying VFR anywhere outside of my own
neighborhood unless I had reviewed my plans carefully in advance.
It's good to see landmarks, but it's better to see landmarks and
instruments that all reach a good consensus on exactly where I am.

> Indeed. Avoiding IMC altogether (unless you are on an IFR flight plan)
> is an even better idea.

Yes, if you can. But it doesn't hurt to prepare in advance as if IMC
might be unavoidable. That way, if it _does_ become unavoidable,
you're not caught completely off guard.

> Yes, but those things are much easier when you can see and much harder
> when you cannot.

Yes ... but you have to do them, anyway, even when you cannot see. In
fact, then you _must_ do them. If you've already gotten into the
habit, you're less likely to wet your pants when they become your only
route to safety.

> Nowadays perhaps. Not when I was learning to fly.

At one time, even a compass was a luxury. But just because things
used to be more primitive doesn't mean you should avoid using more
advanced technologies. Keep a contingency plan available, but don't
hesitate to use the gadgets if they are available and working
correctly. Besides, when you are flying on instruments, that's all
you have. If none of them can be trusted, you're doomed no matter
what, so there's not much point in considering what might happen if
all the instruments fail.

> But in any case, I
> thought the topic at hand is why people get into trouble during
> inadvertent encounters with IMC. The reason is that for one reason or
> another they are not prepared, and the situation very quickly overwhelms
> them. Then they lose control of the airplane, or they lose track of
> where they are and hit a mountain. Of course, this is not inevitable.
> But when it happens that is usually why.

Which is why I'd try to be prepared. I need an instrument rating to
fly legally in IMC, but even without the rating, I'd try to be
prepared to fly on instruments, just in case the weather decides not
to heed my lack of a rating.

> Structural failure is rare and unrecoverable. Vacuum pump failures are
> common and recoverable.

How common is that?

> The vacuum pump doesn't have to fail at that precise moment. It might
> have failed a while ago, but you didn't notice because you were too busy
> looking out the window at the scenery that was visible until a moment
> ago.

Ah ... you mean you were insufficiently aware of your situation long
_before_ you got stuck in IMC. Well, that's a problem.

> That is another way of saying that pilots who die in IMC sometimes have
> faulty instruments. And your point would be...?

That they die because they panic and/or don't know what to do, not
because their instruments failed.

> But it is more of a problem in IMC because you don't have the benefit of
> your peripheral vision telling you if you start to roll.

You have instruments for that. And while turbulence may temporarily
move you in one direction or another, it's less likely to move you in
the same direction for a long period. If it did that, it wouldn't be
turbulence, it would be a wind.

> Yes indeed. But that's the thing: most people flying VFR are not
> prepared.

Well, if they won't prepare, they won't prepare. I would, but that's
just me. I'm paranoid about safety.

> Yep. :-) It's very common in late spring and early summer when the
> jet-stream moves north and the marine layer from the ocean moves inland.
> We call it "June gloom" and there's a local joke that you can pre-record
> the weather forecast during that period: "Early morning low clouds and
> fog burning off to hazy sunshine by mid-afternoon."

I've seen that in person in San Diego (less so in LA), and often
enough in the sim (which uses real-world weather most of the time).
It must be frustrating if you have to cool your heels for half the day
waiting for the fog to burn off, especially since the skies are
probably crystal clear above the fog.

> But why do you care about fog? Do you really want to fly in fog
> (keeping in mind that fog by definition is always close to the ground)?

I do fly in IFR that way. I've set zero visibility from the surface
to 15,000 feet in some cases, and flown from one place to another
without ever being able to see anything. It's quite a challenge. You
have to know where you are and where you are going, and you have to
anticipate things way in advance--no sudden dramatic maneuvers to try
to correct a mistake you made miles back.

> It can be challenging. But I hear the northeast is worse.

I don't know much about the Northeast. It doesn't seem to be very
scenic in any case. Of course, when all the land is flat, presumably
that does make flight safer. But I grew up in the Southwest, so
perhaps I'm prejudiced.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> - Pilots who fly inadvertantly into IMC without already working a proper
> scan will (on average) lose control in approximately 90 seconds.

Sounds like even VFR pilots need to work on getting a proper scan to
be a habit, then.

I don't think too many aircraft in stable flight will spiral out of
control in just 90 seconds, so the loss of control has to be the
pilot's fault ... and it implies that he was never in control to begin
with.

> - 72% of Inadvertant IMC encounters end in a fatality.

See above.

> - 40% of the pilots who make (made) up the above 72% are (were) Instrument
> Rated.

Perhaps VMC encourages complacency.

I'm sure it's much safer to fly IFR in VMC than to fly VFR in IMC.
The implication is that all flights should be IFR, but that admittedly
would take a lot of the fun out of flying for many pilots.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
> > I think I'll start a list of names that responds to MX, in any way
> > other than combatively.
> >
> > That way, some day, I can sit back and look at the names and laugh at
> > them, for being such fools.
> >
> > 1.) Ron Garret
>
> Good thread....
>
> Then we do not reply to the fools as well and take back the group the way
> it was.... and advise newbies to avoid these folks.
>
> Allen

Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the names
and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to lack
the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.

Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
helpful?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Ron,
>
> nice description.

Thanks. :-)

rg

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I get a weather
> update from them, and if there is so much as a hint of clouds in the
> Bay Area, I file
> and IFR flight plan with them, beginning at the next waypoint on my GPS
> flight plan.

By this you mean that you essentially just read off the waypoints on
your GPS to them as your routing?

> About 10 miles from my waypoint, I mention to ATC that I would like
> to activate my IFR flight plan starting at ***. They give me the new
> clearance, I write it down and immediately turn to the new heading
> and altitude. Poof, I'm IFR.

Sounds great.

So do you plan waypoints and fly them for all your flights, even VFR?
If so, I imagine that makes it a lot easier to switch to IFR if the
weather doesn't cooperate.

I usually fly that way in the sim, too, and even when I'm being
"casual," I keep an eye on nearby radio fixes and other things I can
use to find my way if the weather changes. If I'm set to use
real-world weather, it often _does_ change, and then I just switch to
instrument flight.

Which makes me think of something else I was wondering: How do you
work things if you are on the ground at the airport, and there's a
layer of fog or clouds that prevents you from taking off under VFR,
but you know that the weather is clear only a few thousand feet above?
Do you file IFR and fly it until you are in clear air and then cancel
the IFR and switch to VFR, or what?

Does ATC get mad if you switch back and forth to and from IFR as
conditions change?

> One common example is - you're flying along over a cloud
> layer and you'd like to land the airplane. So you ask ATC for
> an approach. I get the feeling that it's easier to get a single
> approach out of ATC directly than a whole flight plan.

That's one scenario I've been wondering about. So do you just call
them and say you'd like to switch to IFR and ask for vectors for your
approach, or what? How much formality does switching to IFR flight
require?

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

[fromTheShadows]

A Lieberma wrote:
> fromTheShadows > wrote in news:ekf7sd$8in$1
> @aioe.server.aioe.org:
>
>> If his questions are good then what bearing does the intention have?
>
> Intentions are everything.
>
> I'd rather put my time and effort to those that will truly use the
> information rather then sit behind a keyboard and make it like the MSFS
> game is reality.
>
> As you will see from my postings, not only will I add to the responders on
> topic, but I am going to advise them they are dealing with a troll.
>
> If it talks, walks and quacks like a troll, it is a troll.
>
> If you have questions, post away. Don't look to Mxmaniac.
>
> If it's a sim question, post to the sim newsgroups. I am sure there are
> pilots that monitor that group.
>
> Also, don't expect pilots to treat simulation the same as the real deal.
> IT IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE!!!!
>
> IF you are in the same simulated world that Mx lives in, then hopefully the
> real world pilots will treat you just the same.
>
> Allen

I have few specific questions, but I do have a general interest in the
answers to most of the posts here. I think that people effectively being
instructed to not answer certain questions is detrimental to the group.

I am a wannabe pilot who for various reasons is unable to fly for real
at the moment, so I content myself with trying to make my sim
environment as realistic as possible. If I want to know about how the
sim works, I go to a sim group. If I want to know how to fly a plane, I
come here. There will inevitably be some overlap between the two worlds,
but I don't think anybody (including even Mx) is expecting anybody to
treat simming as the 'real deal'.

Cheers,

Craig

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
> people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the
> names and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to
> lack the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
> strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.
>
> Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
> helpful?

Probably not since the above is not accurate anyway.

I haven't responded to Mx in some time. You have.....

I am out to let new folks know they are dealing with a troll.

What does it take for you to realize that you are dealing with a troll and
only adding to the problem by replying directly to him???

Seems like he don't give you the time or day either.... Of course if you
like disrespect, more power to you.

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
> > people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the
> > names and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to
> > lack the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
> > strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.
> >
> > Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
> > helpful?
>
> Probably not since the above is not accurate anyway.
>
> I haven't responded to Mx in some time.

I never said you did. I think you need to carefully re-read what I said.

> I am out to let new folks know they are dealing with a troll.

How noble of you. But frankly, between MX's context-dropping and your
straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks it is not entirely clear to
me which of you is the troll.

> What does it take for you to realize that you are dealing with a troll and
> only adding to the problem by replying directly to him???

Sorry, I don't see the problem. Except for his annoying habit of
dropping the context of the conversation on occasion, I have found MX's
questions to be reasonable and on the whole well-informed. In fact, I
think one of the sources of friction might be that in some respects MX
knows more about flying than some of the "real" pilots, and they don't
like being upstaged by a "mere" sim pilot.

No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you, and
I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.

rg

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/27/06 09:59, Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret writes:
>>
>> > It tends to, but it's not a perfect tendency. Real airplanes are rarely
>> > perfectly trimmed; they will have a roll bias one way or the other.
>>
>> Still ... how long before they "flop over" from straight and level
>> flight in trim?
>
> It depends. Seconds to minutes depending on how good the trim was to
> begin with. Definitely not tens of minutes.
>
>> > In practice you can't count on a plane
>> > staying level by itself for more than a few minutes.
>>
>> I think that probably depends a great deal on the plane.
>
> It depends on the plane whether you have seconds or minutes. No plane
> stays level by itself for more than a few minutes.
>
>> > Some planes have rudder and/or aileron trims, but many don't. And even
>> > those that do, it's very hard to get it perfect. And even if you do it
>> > rarely stays that way for long.
>>
>> Granted, but it seems implausible that it changes so quickly and
>> dramatically that the plane flips over the moment you avert your eyes
>> or hands.
>
> I never said it did.
>
>> > Yes. But that's the point: in IMC you have to look and in VMC you don't
>> > (because your peripheral vision will notice if you roll).
>>
>> Well, in IMC you have nothing to see outside the window, so you have
>> more time to look at the attitude indicator.
>
> You're missing the point. Yes, you having nothing to see out the
> window, but you also have to look at other things (other instruments,
> radios, charts). When you do you have to take your eyes off the AI.
> When you do that, absent the peripheral vision cues you have in VMC
> whether or not you are actually looking out the window, the plane can
> (and often will) roll without you realizing it.
>
>> > And by the
>> > time you look you could be in a pretty severe bank. Learning to look at
>> > the AI "often enough" and without fail is a skill that can be
>> > surprisingly difficult to acquire.
>>
>> Maybe, but a VFR pilot who fails to develop this skill quickly in IMC
>> has a serious problem. I don't see any way around that.
>
> Yes, that would be precisely the point I am trying to make.
>
>> > Yep, GPS makes life easier in many ways. With a GPS and an autopilot,
>> > flying a real plane can be not so much different from playing a video
>> > game. But if you want to be safe you have to be able to fly the plane
>> > without them because they can break.
>>
>> I agree. It's highly unlikely that the GPS would break at the same
>> moment that you enter IMC, but one should try to be prepared for
>> anything. In any case, pilots were handling IMC successfully long
>> before GPS came along.
>
> Yes, but not without a great deal of training and practice IN IMC or
> under the hood. You can't practice in VMC without a view limiting
> device because you can't eliminate the subconscious processing of
> peripheral vision information no matter how hard you try.
>
> Actually, simulator pilots might have an easier time in IMC than real
> pilots because flying a sim is actually a lot more like IFR than it is
> like VFR. It would make an interesting experiment.

The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.

In fact, it seems that unfamiliarity with this particular "effect" is what
makes most folks who have never experienced it wonder why everyone else
claims that it makes flying in IMC so difficult. It just has to be
experienced to be understood. You just can't get that from reading.

Even after reading about it (a lot of reading, in fact), the first time
I went up in IMC, I found the urge to follow my senses was overwhelming.

[ snip ]

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Jay Beckman writes:
>
>> - Pilots who fly inadvertantly into IMC without already working a
>> proper scan will (on average) lose control in approximately 90
>> seconds.
>
> Sounds like even VFR pilots need to work on getting a proper scan to
> be a habit, then.
>
> I don't think too many aircraft in stable flight will spiral out of
> control in just 90 seconds, so the loss of control has to be the
> pilot's fault ... and it implies that he was never in control to begin
> with.
>
If the IMC is a cloud, there is a good likelihood that it isn't stable.
You'll be bouncing along, and the attitude of the plane can change
drastically in far less than 90 seconds. It may take that much time to
collide with terrain, though.

> I'm sure it's much safer to fly IFR in VMC than to fly VFR in IMC.
> The implication is that all flights should be IFR, but that admittedly
> would take a lot of the fun out of flying for many pilots.
>
You apparently didn't understand the statistics that you snipped. Go back
and read them again for comprehension.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
> disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.

How about Mx gets in an FAA motion simulator - the kind that just spins
slowly while the "pilot" tries to follow simulated ATC commands. It's
not real flying, so Mx might be willing to try it. It would be a real
eye-opener too.

I know he's in France, maybe they have something similar there. Here
you can often find these things at major airshows (I got a ride in at
Sun'n'Fun).

Failing that, if he can power his simulator with a battery (like, on a
laptop), maybe he can put the whole thing on a rotating platform and
have somebody slowly spin him in the dark while he flies.

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.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> > nice description.
>
> Thanks. :-)
>

The troll still doesn't buy it and thinks he would do better, as you
can see.

We've been down that road several times before you came in.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"fromTheShadows" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have few specific questions, but I do have a general interest in the
> answers to most of the posts here. I think that people effectively being
> instructed to not answer certain questions is detrimental to the group.
>
> I am a wannabe pilot who for various reasons is unable to fly for real at
> the moment, so I content myself with trying to make my sim environment as
> realistic as possible. If I want to know about how the sim works, I go to
> a sim group. If I want to know how to fly a plane, I come here. There will
> inevitably be some overlap between the two worlds, but I don't think
> anybody (including even Mx) is expecting anybody to treat simming as the
> 'real deal'.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>


Craig, the problems that many in this group has with Mx aren't the
questions. It is the fact that once and answer is given then he will argue
that the answer is wrong and then the tread goes to hell in a handbasket.
This is the reason we don't want to answer his questions.

If you have a question ask it and as Mx has been told many times if the
answer you get is wrong please be sure that a pilot or 10 here will be sure
to correct it. If Mx asks a question that you would like to know the answer
to please feel free to cut and paste the question under your name. I'm sure
you will get an answer.

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you,
> and I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.

Then kill file me, no loss to me....

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you,
> > and I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.
>
> Then kill file me

An interesting suggestion coming from you. How do you think that would
help? If I killfiled you would that make MX go away? How would that
work exactly?

Or were you just trying to be funny?

rg

[fromTheShadows]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Craig, the problems that many in this group has with Mx aren't the
> questions. It is the fact that once and answer is given then he will argue
> that the answer is wrong and then the tread goes to hell in a handbasket.
> This is the reason we don't want to answer his questions.
>

I understand that his peculiar debating style can be irritating and that
he makes a fool of himself when arguing piloting matters with apparently
authoritative statements rather than requests for clarification. However
a lot of what he posts is on topic, informed and interesting. Many other
posters create far more noise by arguing the smallest points ad
infinitum (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about) but are tolerated
seemingly because they are pilots. If he goes 'off on one' then I agree
that its probably best to ignore him in that thread, but if he posts a
question that you would otherwise answer if it came from someone else
then please don't be discouraged answering it from him.

> to correct it. If Mx asks a question that you would like to know the answer
> to please feel free to cut and paste the question under your name. I'm sure
> you will get an answer.

Fair enough, but it seems a shame that I should have to. Anyway, lets
see... :-)

[Robert Chambers]

If it wasn't for MX himself I wouldn't have bothered to figure out how
to implement the killfile type filter in Mozilla thunderbird. it works,
the only snag is that it only hides his posts, not the adnauseum
followups to them because he doesn't believe the replies he gets.

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> A Lieberma > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
>>>people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the
>>>names and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to
>>>lack the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
>>>strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.
>>>
>>>Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
>>>helpful?
>>
>>Probably not since the above is not accurate anyway.
>>
>>I haven't responded to Mx in some time.
>
>
> I never said you did. I think you need to carefully re-read what I said.
>
>
>>I am out to let new folks know they are dealing with a troll.
>
>
> How noble of you. But frankly, between MX's context-dropping and your
> straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks it is not entirely clear to
> me which of you is the troll.
>
>
>>What does it take for you to realize that you are dealing with a troll and
>>only adding to the problem by replying directly to him???
>
>
> Sorry, I don't see the problem. Except for his annoying habit of
> dropping the context of the conversation on occasion, I have found MX's
> questions to be reasonable and on the whole well-informed. In fact, I
> think one of the sources of friction might be that in some respects MX
> knows more about flying than some of the "real" pilots, and they don't
> like being upstaged by a "mere" sim pilot.
>
> No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you, and
> I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.
>
> rg

[Robert Chambers]

Jose wrote:
>> The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
>> disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.
>
>
> How about Mx gets in an FAA motion simulator - the kind that just spins
> slowly while the "pilot" tries to follow simulated ATC commands. It's
> not real flying, so Mx might be willing to try it. It would be a real
> eye-opener too.
>
> I know he's in France, maybe they have something similar there. Here
> you can often find these things at major airshows (I got a ride in at
> Sun'n'Fun).

or better yet, get in one of those airbus demo planes with the tree
trimming attachments.


> Failing that, if he can power his simulator with a battery (like, on a
> laptop), maybe he can put the whole thing on a rotating platform and
> have somebody slowly spin him in the dark while he flies.
>
> Jose

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
:

> An interesting suggestion coming from you. How do you think that would
> help? If I killfiled you would that make MX go away? How would that
> work exactly?
> Or were you just trying to be funny?

Well, you were the one displeased with me, you control what you want to see
(or not). If you are displeased the way I am handling Mx, then kill file
me.

What will make Mx go away is for NOBODY to respond to his post, no matter
how "good" his questions are, it's that plain and simple.

My plan of action as noble as you see it be, is to let new folks know when
they reply to Mx, they are dealing with a troll.

Kabeesh?

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
> :
>
> > An interesting suggestion coming from you. How do you think that would
> > help? If I killfiled you would that make MX go away? How would that
> > work exactly?
> > Or were you just trying to be funny?
>
> Well, you were the one displeased with me, you control what you want to see
> (or not). If you are displeased the way I am handling Mx, then kill file
> me.

What, and leave you to fight the good fight all by yourself? That would
hardly be sporting of me. Besides, I'm not convinced that your
do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do tactics are particularly effective. Probably
best to have a back-up plan in case yours doesn't work, no?

> What will make Mx go away is for NOBODY to respond to his post, no matter
> how "good" his questions are, it's that plain and simple.

And what would make you go away?

> My plan of action as noble as you see it be, is to let new folks know when
> they reply to Mx, they are dealing with a troll.

Sounds good to me. Who will warn them about you?

rg

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> It depends. Seconds to minutes depending on how good the trim was to
> begin with. Definitely not tens of minutes.

I once had the simulated Baron in apparently straight and level flight
and I happened to forget that it was flying in the background while I
checked mail and did some other things. After quite a long time I
went back and looked at it and it had merely described an extremely
large oval track over the ground (because of P-factor and torque), but
was still holding altitude, and had not flipped over.

> It depends on the plane whether you have seconds or minutes. No plane
> stays level by itself for more than a few minutes.

Even when trimmed? This seems to contradict what I've read in other
sources. While the aircraft may not stay perfectly on course at
exactly the same altitude over time (because it burns fuel and because
of other slowly changing factors), it's hard to picture it turning
over and spiraling into the ground. I'll have to do some experiments.

> I never said it did.

You imply that without constant attention, the plane will eventually
deviate so far from its original attitude that it will be out of
control.

> You're missing the point. Yes, you having nothing to see out the
> window, but you also have to look at other things (other instruments,
> radios, charts). When you do you have to take your eyes off the AI.
> When you do that, absent the peripheral vision cues you have in VMC
> whether or not you are actually looking out the window, the plane can
> (and often will) roll without you realizing it.

It's not going to suddenly start rolling just because you aren't
watching it. It may enter a gradual bank, or very slowly gain or lose
altitude, but if you check it periodically you should be fine. You
don't have much choice, if you are busy with other essential chores
and you are alone.

> Yes, but not without a great deal of training and practice IN IMC or
> under the hood. You can't practice in VMC without a view limiting
> device because you can't eliminate the subconscious processing of
> peripheral vision information no matter how hard you try.

What about light entering the cockpit? Even with a hood you'd still
have plenty of visual clues.

> Actually, simulator pilots might have an easier time in IMC than real
> pilots because flying a sim is actually a lot more like IFR than it is
> like VFR. It would make an interesting experiment.

I agree. In a simulator (at least one that doesn't provide motion),
you can never fly by the seat of the pants, except for visual clues,
and these are often more limited than they are in real life. I've
heard complaints that people with a lot of sim experience concentrate
on instruments all the time, even when they should be looking out the
window. But if there's nothing to see out the window, this could be
an advantage.

> Or it can make it worse when you realize that you now have two lives in
> your hands and not just one. It depends a lot on who the other person
> is. If your co-pilot is a CFII that can be really handy. If it's your
> girlfriend and she's screaming "We're gonna diiiiiieeeeeee!!!" at the
> top of her lungs that can make things worse.

I wouldn't want a girlfriend like that, but your point is taken.

> A few seconds to a few minutes depending on how good your trim is.

And you are really, seriously saying that the plane will be inverted
after a few minutes if you don't give it constant attention?

> If you're flying over flat terrain that is true. If you are near
> mountains it's not.

I had previously acknowledged that mountains are a special case.

> Not around here.

They may be common in your neighborhood, but supposedly mountain
flying is still a special type of flying.

> Remember, you are climbing because you forgot to monitor the
> altimeter and have just realized that you are in danger of hitting
> nearby mountains.

Whoa ... when did I make that serious mistake? The chart says 14,500
in my sector, so I'm at 15,500. I shouldn't be hitting anything.

Or, much more likely in the United States, I'm at 8500 or so and the
highest terrain is at around 4000. Plenty of room.

> You are no longer at the top of your game.

I was in trouble from the time I allowed myself to fly below the level
of surrounding terrain.

> In such a circumstance and in the absence of the usual visual
> cues, it is very easy to forget to apply right rudder in a climb
> and end up in a power-on stall and spin.

A power-on stall and spin in a Baron? Can that happen?

When I see the AI tilt, I straighten it back out. I don't like a
tilty AI, and prop planes seem to have an annoying tendency to drift
to the left no matter what, so I'm constantly looking at it.

> Does your sim setup even have rudder pedals, or do you fly by mouse?

The former.

> You can consider it a choice only if you are willing to risk death by
> staying where you are. Of course, if you are willing to die then flight
> in IMC is really a cakewalk.

But if I'm already above all nearby terrain--as I should be--the
terrain isn't going to jump up and grab me just because I'm in a
cloud.

> Yes, that is the point. If you are not practiced, the situation can
> easily get to the point where the time it takes you to do the things you
> have to do exceeds the time available to do them.

What time limits do you have, other than fuel? As long as you make
sure you're above terrain, there's no reason to panic. You have an
altimeter and a chart that has the highest terrain marked in each of
those little squares (I forget what the chart calls them). If the
altimeter reads higher than those numbers, you're fine. If it
doesn't, you climb until it does.

> I don't have numbers handy, but it's quite common. Anything with moving
> parts (vacuum pumps, mechanical gyros, engines) can pretty much be
> counted on to fail regularly.

No wonder GA is so dangerous, if failure rates like that are
considered acceptable.

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

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> And what would make you go away?

Not a thing.

I regularily contribut Ron, don't only respond but contribute my positive
and not so positive experiences in my short aviation career.

I am of the type if I make a mistake, that I hope others learn from it.

Don't believe me, just google my name up, I have nothing to hide.

> Sounds good to me. Who will warn them about you?

Do all you want, see above, I think my past history, current and future
stands on it's own.

Don't like it? Kill file me.

Appears so far, you are the ONLY one complaining.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> If the IMC is a cloud, there is a good likelihood that it isn't stable.

Yes, but the IMC I have in mind is mostly low visibility. Fog, mist,
haze, that sort of thing. Flying into a big and angry cloud isn't a
good idea no matter what type of rating you and your aircraft have.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
> disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.

They are different sides of the same coin.

In a non-moving simulator, you have no motion information at all. You
learn to trust your instruments because you _cannot_ depend on _any_
sensation to help you. You _can_ look out the window, although it's
somewhat less detailed and comprehensive than in real life.

If anything, sim pilots are more instrument-oriented than real pilots,
and from what I've read and heard, they tend to concentrate too much
on instruments. It's not a problem to get them to look at
instruments.

Sure, they'd feel different sensations in real life. But they've
already learned that there's no connection between sensation and
flying, so they might or might not find this disorienting.

> Even after reading about it (a lot of reading, in fact), the first time
> I went up in IMC, I found the urge to follow my senses was overwhelming.

How did you survive, then?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> How about Mx gets in an FAA motion simulator - the kind that just spins
> slowly while the "pilot" tries to follow simulated ATC commands. It's
> not real flying, so Mx might be willing to try it. It would be a real
> eye-opener too.

I'd prefer a full-motion simulator.

> I know he's in France, maybe they have something similar there. Here
> you can often find these things at major airshows (I got a ride in at
> Sun'n'Fun).

There are plenty of full-motion simulators for large jets around
Paris. They are just inaccessible, that's all.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> The troll still doesn't buy it and thinks he would do better, as you
> can see.

And you still cannot countenance the thought that he might not do
worse. Who's right?

Many people won't accept anything but submission and sycophancy, and
whenever someone doesn't provide these, they insist that he is wrong,
that he is a troll, etc. People who believe themselves superior don't
like to have their superiority questioned, especially if they discover
that they cannot support their belief when it is questioned.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Craig, the problems that many in this group has with Mx aren't the
> questions. It is the fact that once and answer is given then he will argue
> that the answer is wrong and then the tread goes to hell in a handbasket.

I don't argue that answers are wrong. I question them and expect the
basis for those answers to be explained. I'm not stupid enough to
accept anything I'm told at face value. If someone cannot explain why
he gives a particular answer, he is probably making things up as goes
along, and I cannot afford to develop misconceptions and bad habits.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"A Lieberma" > wrote >

> My plan of action as noble as you see it be, is to let new folks know when
> they reply to Mx, they are dealing with a troll.
>
> Kabeesh?

It takes a little longer for some people. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. net...
> If it wasn't for MX himself I wouldn't have bothered to figure out how to
> implement the killfile type filter in Mozilla thunderbird. it works, the only
> snag is that it only hides his posts, not the adnauseum followups to them
> because he doesn't believe the replies he gets.

I think that we are to the point where most people are not responding to MX, so
I am going to take a bit of advise given to me.

Kill fill anyone who is responding to MX's questions, with anything other than
hostility or a warning to a new-bee. It will thin out the posts, but you have
to be suspect of the advise or answers someone who talks to a troll would be
giving you, anyway.

In a month or whatever, I'll come back and unblock MX, and see if he is still
around. If he is gone, I might start to unblock the other responders, after
that.

Maybe. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"fromTheShadows" > wrote

> I think the anti-Mx brigade are doing considerable harm whilst imagining they
> are doing good, and 'Jim in NC' in particular is starting to look ridiculous.

Just a quick reply to you, before you get blocked.

I was being as combative as possible, taking every point made by him that was
not right and throwing it in his face. My intention was purely to make him
uncomfortable.

If you knew me in person, I am very easy to get along with, and will try to go
with the flow, and make peace. Then I reach my breaking point, when I say
enough is enough.

Mx reached it, as stongly as anyone in a very long time.

Any part of my looking ridiculous and doing harm is not even half of the harm he
is doing/has done here. I make no apologies.

I'm done caring any longer, because when I see people still responding, and
sticking up for him like you and others are doing, I know my efforts are in
vain. My solution (suggested by another wise poster) is to just ignore you and
your ilk until the whole thing blowes over. I won't be bothered with you/them
again.

> Apologies in advance to those likely to take offence at a comment from a mere
> sim pilot.

Until you stuck up for him, I would have welcomed you with open arms. Not now.

Time for "tough love."

Thanks for making it so easy to see which people to throw in the sh*t can.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > It depends. Seconds to minutes depending on how good the trim was to
> > begin with. Definitely not tens of minutes.
>
> I once had the simulated Baron in apparently straight and level flight
> and I happened to forget that it was flying in the background while I
> checked mail and did some other things. After quite a long time I
> went back and looked at it and it had merely described an extremely
> large oval track over the ground (because of P-factor and torque), but
> was still holding altitude, and had not flipped over.

So? That just shows that your sim isn't very good.

> > It depends on the plane whether you have seconds or minutes. No plane
> > stays level by itself for more than a few minutes.
>
> Even when trimmed?

Yes.

> This seems to contradict what I've read in other sources.

Your other sources are wrong.

> I'll have to do some experiments.

You'll need a real airplane. Your sim is not adequate.

> You imply that without constant attention, the plane will eventually
> deviate so far from its original attitude that it will be out of
> control.

For some level of "constant" that is correct. You can leave it alone
for seconds to minutes, but not tens of minutes (unless you have an
autopilot and are willing to bet your life on its proper operation).


> It's not going to suddenly start rolling just because you aren't
> watching it.

Yes, it will. Not always but often.

> It may enter a gradual bank, or very slowly gain or lose
> altitude, but if you check it periodically you should be fine.

That's right. But when the workload is high that can be a big IF.


> > Yes, but not without a great deal of training and practice IN IMC or
> > under the hood. You can't practice in VMC without a view limiting
> > device because you can't eliminate the subconscious processing of
> > peripheral vision information no matter how hard you try.
>
> What about light entering the cockpit? Even with a hood you'd still
> have plenty of visual clues.

That's exactly right. That's why even pilots who have trained under a
hood often freak out the first time they're actually in a cloud. It is
impossible to fully simulate the experience.

> > Actually, simulator pilots might have an easier time in IMC than real
> > pilots because flying a sim is actually a lot more like IFR than it is
> > like VFR. It would make an interesting experiment.
>
> I agree. In a simulator (at least one that doesn't provide motion),
> you can never fly by the seat of the pants, except for visual clues,
> and these are often more limited than they are in real life. I've
> heard complaints that people with a lot of sim experience concentrate
> on instruments all the time, even when they should be looking out the
> window. But if there's nothing to see out the window, this could be
> an advantage.

It's not out of the question that all your sim experience would make you
a better IFR pilot than one who trained in a real airplane. Come to LA
and we'll find out.


> > A few seconds to a few minutes depending on how good your trim is.
>
> And you are really, seriously saying that the plane will be inverted
> after a few minutes if you don't give it constant attention?

Yep. Come to LA and I'll show you. (Or if you promise to shut up about
this after I do it, I'll take a video camera with me on my next flight
and show you that way.)


> They may be common in your neighborhood, but supposedly mountain
> flying is still a special type of flying.

Mountain flying and flying near mountains are not the same thing. The
former is special, the latter is not.

> > Remember, you are climbing because you forgot to monitor the
> > altimeter and have just realized that you are in danger of hitting
> > nearby mountains.
>
> Whoa ... when did I make that serious mistake? The chart says 14,500
> in my sector, so I'm at 15,500. I shouldn't be hitting anything.

When your gaze was going back and forth between the chart and the AI and
you forgot to look at the altimeter. (Go back a re-read the scenario.)


> A power-on stall and spin in a Baron? Can that happen?

Of course. Why would you doubt it?

> When I see the AI tilt, I straighten it back out.

If you do it with your ailerons that may or may not help.

But look, I'm just trying to explain how people can (and often do) get
themselves into trouble. Maybe none of these things apply to you.
Maybe you are the best pilot the world has ever seen and you would never
make a single one of the possible mistakes I've described. But I
wouldn't bet my life on it.

> > You can consider it a choice only if you are willing to risk death by
> > staying where you are. Of course, if you are willing to die then flight
> > in IMC is really a cakewalk.
>
> But if I'm already above all nearby terrain--as I should be--the
> terrain isn't going to jump up and grab me just because I'm in a
> cloud.

That's the fourth time you've dropped the context, and that is (as I
warned you it would be) the limit of my patience. So I bid you adieu
and #0000FF skies.

rg

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "fromTheShadows" > wrote
>
>> I think the anti-Mx brigade are doing considerable harm whilst
>> imagining they are doing good, and 'Jim in NC' in particular is
>> starting to look ridiculous.
>
> Just a quick reply to you, before you get blocked.

I hate to say this, but feel free to block me too while you're at it.

(Ironically I've taken my jabs at mxsmanic too, but in 18 years of reading
Usenet I've never felt the need to use filters or killfiles.)

[A Lieberma]

Ron Garret > wrote in

> That's the fourth time you've dropped the context, and that is (as I
> warned you it would be) the limit of my patience. So I bid you adieu
> and #0000FF skies.

Thanks Ron :-)

Allen

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> I hate to say this, but feel free to block me too while you're at it.
>
> (Ironically I've taken my jabs at mxsmanic too, but in 18 years of reading
> Usenet I've never felt the need to use filters or killfiles.)

So because I feel the need to use kill files, you are so opposed to said, you
feel I should block you? I don't see the connection.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> So? That just shows that your sim isn't very good.

What happens when you let go of the controls on your Baron for 40
minutes?

> Your other sources are wrong.

They are all wrong, but you are right?

> You'll need a real airplane. Your sim is not adequate.

How do you know?

> For some level of "constant" that is correct. You can leave it alone
> for seconds to minutes, but not tens of minutes (unless you have an
> autopilot and are willing to bet your life on its proper operation).

I'll have to try it.

> It's not out of the question that all your sim experience would make you
> a better IFR pilot than one who trained in a real airplane. Come to LA
> and we'll find out.

As soon as I win the lottery.

> When your gaze was going back and forth between the chart and the AI and
> you forgot to look at the altimeter. (Go back a re-read the scenario.)

Why would the altimeter change? I was in level flight, nicely
trimmed.

> Of course. Why would you doubt it?

Different aircraft behave in different ways.

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

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
>> I hate to say this, but feel free to block me too while you're at it.
>>
>> (Ironically I've taken my jabs at mxsmanic too, but in 18 years of
>> reading Usenet I've never felt the need to use filters or killfiles.)
>
> So because I feel the need to use kill files, you are so opposed to
> said, you feel I should block you? I don't see the connection.

Sorry - I didn't intend for there to be any connection to the two thoughts.

In the first sentence I just felt that since I have recently replied to
Mxsmanic (and I'd like to reserve the right do so in the future), I figured
I may as well alert you now to save you some time later.

In the parenthetical remark I was just pointing out our differing
approaches (or perhaps philosophies) in how we handle annoying posters.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> In the first sentence I just felt that since I have recently replied to
> Mxsmanic (and I'd like to reserve the right do so in the future), I figured
> I may as well alert you now to save you some time later.

We'll just have to see how you handle the MX. I won't add you 'till needed! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[A Lieberma]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> In the first sentence I just felt that since I have recently replied
> to Mxsmanic (and I'd like to reserve the right do so in the future), I
> figured I may as well alert you now to save you some time later.

Why not reply by email OR reply back to the sim groups, trimming
rec.aviation.piloting and student out and spare the rest of us if you feel
the need to reply.

It's just a matter of courtesy to the rest of us who would like to see Mx
dissapear out of the rec.aviation.piloting and student newsgroups radar.

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > So? That just shows that your sim isn't very good.
>
> What happens when you let go of the controls on your Baron for 40
> minutes?

I don't fly a baron, but I guarantee you that you will be dead.

> > Your other sources are wrong.
>
> They are all wrong, but you are right?

Yes.

> > You'll need a real airplane. Your sim is not adequate.
>
> How do you know?

575 hours of flying real airplanes.

> > It's not out of the question that all your sim experience would make you
> > a better IFR pilot than one who trained in a real airplane. Come to LA
> > and we'll find out.
>
> As soon as I win the lottery.

Lousy excuse. You can fly round trip from Paris to LA for less than
$650.

rg

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If I am instrument rated and my aircraft is fully equipped for
> instrument flight, and I start out a flight with a VFR flight plan,
> and it gets foggy enough that I'm below minimums, is there a way to
> switch to IFR in flight, or do I have to have filed IFR from the
> beginning? If it's possible in flight, how does it work? Is it
> possible to later switch back again?

Yes you can switch between them. Just press the "~" key, and the ATC menu
will pop-up. There will be an option to open a VFR flight plan there.
Oz Lander

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
A Lieberma > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
>
> > That's the fourth time you've dropped the context, and that is (as I
> > warned you it would be) the limit of my patience. So I bid you adieu
> > and #0000FF skies.
>
> Thanks Ron :-)
>
> Allen

You know, Allen, between you and MX it's a real tough call for me who is
the more annoying. I've said this before, I'll say it again: aside from
his admittedly infuriating habit of dropping context, I find MX's
questions to be reasonable and well informed. In fact, given the
apparent limits of his resources I would say that MX is exceptionally
well informed, and in many cases he seems to know more than some of the
"real" pilots hanging out here, and I think that may account in no small
measure for his lack of popularity in some quarters.

I think maybe I'll continue to answer his questions just to prevent you
from coming to the mistaken conclusion that I in any way endorse your
counterproductive and ill-considered attempts at censorship.

rg

[Judah]

A Lieberma > wrote in
. 18:

> Why not reply by email OR reply back to the sim groups, trimming
> rec.aviation.piloting and student out and spare the rest of us if you feel
> the need to reply.
>
> It's just a matter of courtesy to the rest of us who would like to see Mx
> dissapear out of the rec.aviation.piloting and student newsgroups radar.
>
> Allen

That's an EXCELLENT suggestion!

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> I don't fly a baron, but I guarantee you that you will be dead.

Well, I simulated it. Ninety minutes in heavy turbulence with the
autopilot off, with the aircraft trimmed for straight and level
flight. Throttles were set to allow for neutral elevator trim.

The aircraft bounced around a lot, but it lost only 200 feet in
altitude, and apparently it intended to stay there. It burned about a
quarter of its fuel. It held very approximately a straight line to
the southeast, although it drifted back and forth by 10-20 miles at a
time. Despite turbulence that sometimes had the aircraft rolling by
20 degrees or more, it remained level overall. There was no tendency
for it to flip over.

This is pretty much what I expected. Offhand, I can't see any reason
why an aircraft would suddenly destabilize itself and spin out of
control.

At the time I stopped it, it was about 1000 feet above rising terrain
(the mountains were coming up, but the aircraft was at a constant
altitude).

> 575 hours of flying real airplanes.

How much time have you spent with a simulator?

> Lousy excuse. You can fly round trip from Paris to LA for less than
> $650.

That's a month's net pay, if things go well.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> Yes you can switch between them. Just press the "~" key, and the ATC menu
> will pop-up. There will be an option to open a VFR flight plan there.

There is no such option when using live ATC.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > I don't fly a baron, but I guarantee you that you will be dead.
>
> Well, I simulated it.

I hate to be the one to break this to you kid (and I say this with a
certain irony because I know I'm not the first person to tell you this)
but your sim is not an accurate model of reality.

> > 575 hours of flying real airplanes.
>
> How much time have you spent with a simulator?

What difference does that make? This is not rec.aviation.simulators.
Context, son! Why so you have so much trouble with context?

> > Lousy excuse. You can fly round trip from Paris to LA for less than
> > $650.
>
> That's a month's net pay, if things go well.

Really? That surprises me. You're obviously a bright person, and you
live in a modern industrialized country where the average annual income
is well over $20,000. And yet you make less than $8,000 a year? Even
more surprising, although your income places well below the poverty
level, you can still afford a computer, a flight simulator setup with
rudder pedals, internet access, and a whole lot of spare time to post to
newsgroups and play with your sim?

It's hard for me to believe that you couldn't scrape together $650
somehow. Take half the hours you spend on usenet and your sim and go
work at a McDonald's and you'll have $650 saved before you know it.
I'll wait.

rg

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> If the IMC is a cloud, there is a good likelihood that it isn't
>> stable.
>
> Yes, but the IMC I have in mind is mostly low visibility. Fog, mist,
> haze, that sort of thing. Flying into a big and angry cloud isn't a
> good idea no matter what type of rating you and your aircraft have.
>
Flying into fog is an even worse idea, given that fog is usually pretty
close to the terrain.

OTOH, a good deal of IMC requires that you fly into the clouds, many of
which are turbulent, though I wouldn't call them "big and angry" as in
cumulo nimbus, and most situations where one goes from VMC to IMC will put
you in the clouds.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Really? That surprises me. You're obviously a bright person, and you
> live in a modern industrialized country where the average annual income
> is well over $20,000. And yet you make less than $8,000 a year? Even
> more surprising, although your income places well below the poverty
> level, you can still afford a computer, a flight simulator setup with
> rudder pedals, internet access, and a whole lot of spare time to post to
> newsgroups and play with your sim?
>
> It's hard for me to believe that you couldn't scrape together $650
> somehow. Take half the hours you spend on usenet and your sim and go
> work at a McDonald's and you'll have $650 saved before you know it.
> I'll wait.
>
> rg

He also owns at least 2 domains. One at mxsmaniac.com and the one below
which I assume is his real name.


Visit http://atkielski.com/ for everything you ever wanted to know about mxs
but were afraid to ask.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Visit http://atkielski.com/ for everything you ever wanted to know about mxs
> but were afraid to ask.
>


Interesting site...

[Thomas Borchert]

B,

> Interesting site...
>

Interesting blog...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> I hate to be the one to break this to you kid (and I say this with a
> certain irony because I know I'm not the first person to tell you this)
> but your sim is not an accurate model of reality.

List the relevant differences in the context of this discussion.

> What difference does that make?

A great deal, especially since you seem to underestimate them.

If I am unqualified to speak of real flight because I don't have some
arbitrary number of hours of experience as a real pilot, what
qualifies you to speak of simulation if you don't have some equally
arbitrary number of hours working with simulators?

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
>
>>I hate to be the one to break this to you kid (and I say this with a
>>certain irony because I know I'm not the first person to tell you this)
>>but your sim is not an accurate model of reality.
>
>
> List the relevant differences in the context of this discussion.


You've got to be kidding.



>
>
>>What difference does that make?

>
> If I am unqualified to speak of real flight because I don't have some
> arbitrary number of hours



Nothing arbitrary about zero.






of experience as a real pilot, what
> qualifies you to speak of simulation if you don't have some equally
> arbitrary number of hours working with simulators?
>

We've all played on a flight sim.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You've got to be kidding.

I don't kid.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > I hate to be the one to break this to you kid (and I say this with a
> > certain irony because I know I'm not the first person to tell you this)
> > but your sim is not an accurate model of reality.
>
> List the relevant differences in the context of this discussion.

Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.

> > What difference does that make?
>
> A great deal, especially since you seem to underestimate them.
>
> If I am unqualified to speak of real flight because I don't have some
> arbitrary number of hours of experience as a real pilot, what
> qualifies you to speak of simulation if you don't have some equally
> arbitrary number of hours working with simulators?

I have a reliable source of information about sims: you. You told me
that your simulated plane does something that I know from personal
experience real planes don't do. I don't have to have any experience
with sims to know that there are only two possibilities: either your
simulator is not realistic or you are lying. I have no reason to
believe you are lying.

rg

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.

Unless you use the poor man's wingleveler (the rudder pedals).

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

[Jon]

Ron Garret wrote:

> It's hard for me to believe that you couldn't scrape together $650
> somehow. Take half the hours you spend on usenet and your sim and go
> work at a McDonald's and you'll have $650 saved before you know it.
> I'll wait.

Indeed. Interesting choice, too, given McDonald's attempts to simulate
a real hamburger...

:D

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.

Some do, some don't. It depends on how the plane is designed. In the
simulator, a Baron 58 remains stable in straight and level flight for
very long periods with the pilot's hands off the controls. This may
reflect the behavior of the actual aircraft, or it may be a constraint
of the simulator. The way one aircraft behaves may not be correlated
with the way another behaves. I would need to hear from an
experienced Baron 58 pilot to know whether the sim stability is
duplicated in real life.

There is one difference in the sim that comes to mind: I think that
the controls are to some extent held in place by the sim. In other
words, in a real aircraft, if you take your hands off the controls,
and various aerodynamic forces or other factors act to move the
control surfaces, those surfaces are free to move. In the sim, the
surfaces are held in place at the current position of the yoke or
joystick. Thus, instabilities that might develop and increase because
of self-induced movements of the control surfaces will not appear in
the sim, because it behaves as though one always has hands on the
controls.

Put another way, in the sim, if you take your hands off the controls,
it's the same as keeping your hands on the controls but not moving
them, in that the controls are not free to move on their own. In many
real aircraft, if you take your hands off the controls, they are free
to move on their own. Whether they do or not is a separate question.

There is also the complication of force-feedback for sims. There may
be a provision in the sim that allows controls to move freely as long
as their input position is not changed, but I'm not sure.

> I don't have to have any experience
> with sims to know that there are only two possibilities: either your
> simulator is not realistic or you are lying. I have no reason to
> believe you are lying.

The difference is either as described above, or it is simply specific
to certain types of aircraft, and the Baron is designed with more
stability than others.

I'll see if I can persuade the aircraft to misbehave by disconnecting
the controls in straight and level flight. That (I think) would
prevent the controls from being held in position. Hmm.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Unless you use the poor man's wingleveler (the rudder pedals).

You mean keeping your feet on the pedals, I presume?

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.
>
> Unless you use the poor man's wingleveler (the rudder pedals).

Good point. I should have said "if you don't touch any of the controls"
or something like that.

I suppose it's possible that some planes really are stable in roll, and
it's possible that the Baron 58 is one of them. I don't know, I've
never piloted a twin. But none of the planes I've ever flown (C152,
C172, C182 (both RG and non), Piper Archer, Piper Arrow, Piper Comanche,
Diamond Katana, Cirrus SR22, and a Sequoia Falco) were stable in roll
for more than a few minutes at a time. When it's trimmed as well as I
can manage and the air is smooth, my SR22 still rolls a few tenths of a
degree per second.

rg

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Garret writes:
>
>> Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.
>
> Some do, some don't. It depends on how the plane is designed. In the
> simulator, a Baron 58 remains stable in straight and level flight for
> very long periods with the pilot's hands off the controls.


All GA aircraft..................ALL..............have spiral instability.
Every one of them will end up in a pile of aluminum oxide if the controls
are released.

Barons are no exception, and have MUCH more spiral instability than most.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
>
>>Real airplanes roll (sooner or later) if you take your hand off the yoke.
>
>
> Some do, some don't.



No, wrong. They all do.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> When it's trimmed as well as I
> can manage and the air is smooth, my SR22 still rolls a few tenths of a
> degree per second.

But it has a parachute, doesn't it?

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

[Mxsmanic]

karl gruber writes:

> All GA aircraft..................ALL..............have spiral instability.

That's a broad statement. You're familiar with all of them.

It's possible to build an aircraft without spiral instability.
Whether this is often done in practice, I don't know. I'm not
familiar with every aircraft ever built.

> Barons are no exception, and have MUCH more spiral instability than most.

How many hours do you have in the Baron?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No, wrong. They all do.

It depends on how they are designed. They can be designed for
stability. But the more stable an aircraft is, the harder it is to
maneuver, so there are usually compromises.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Garret writes:
>
>> When it's trimmed as well as I
>> can manage and the air is smooth, my SR22 still rolls a few tenths of a
>> degree per second.
>
> But it has a parachute, doesn't it?

What in the world does a parachute have to do with roll stability. Do you
believe the parachute makes the plane more stable?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> What in the world does a parachute have to do with roll stability.

If the plane is unstable, you can just pull the chute.

> Do you believe the parachute makes the plane more stable?

I think the Martians do it.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> What in the world does a parachute have to do with roll stability.
>
> If the plane is unstable, you can just pull the chute.
>
You might wish to look up the term "roll stability" to understand just how
absurd your notion is.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> You might wish to look up the term "roll stability" to understand just how
> absurd your notion is.
>

Why do you still honor this guy with answers?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[A Lieberma]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
:

> You might wish to look up the term "roll stability" to understand just
> how absurd your notion is.
>
> Neil

You are wasting your time Neil. He won't look it up.....

Allen

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Dave Stadt writes:
>
> > What in the world does a parachute have to do with roll stability.
>
> If the plane is unstable, you can just pull the chute.

I suppose you can, but that would be an exceedingly foolish thing to do.
To begin with, the plane *is* unstable (unless the autopilot is engaged
and working properly). That is just a fact (notwithstanding what your
simulator has to say about it). So if your plan is to pull the chute at
the onset of instability then you'll have to pull it as soon as your
wheels leave the ground. That would be unwise.

But I presume you meant to say that if you end up out of control in IMC
as a result of the plane's instability then you can save yourself by
pulling the chute. No, you can't. The chute only works below 133 KIAS.
Faster than that and it shreds. If you let the situation deteriorate to
the point where you can't recover you are almost certainly in a spiral
dive, and the chances that your airspeed will be less than 133 KIAS at
that point are vanishingly small.

Sorry, Anthony, there is simply no way around the fact that flying a
real airplane in IMC is significantly harder than you think it is.

rg

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Neil,
>
>> You might wish to look up the term "roll stability" to understand
>> just how absurd your notion is.
>>
>
> Why do you still honor this guy with answers?
>
Notice that my answers send him elsewhere and underscore the inaccuracy of
his ideas? ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Allen,

Recently, A Lieberma > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> :
>
>> You might wish to look up the term "roll stability" to understand
>> just how absurd your notion is.
>>
>> Neil
>
> You are wasting your time Neil. He won't look it up.....
>
I don't expect that he will. However, someone who wants to know why his
notion is bizarre might, and can then draw their own conclusions about his
knowledge of the topic. That is the reader I'm writing to in my responses
to Mxsmanic.

Neil

[A Lieberma]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
:

> Notice that my answers send him elsewhere and underscore the
> inaccuracy of his ideas? ;-)

Here lies the problem... IT DOES NOT send him elsewhere. He only replies
back with more bizarre answers.

The best thing to rid of a troll is to totally ignore him.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

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

> There are quite a few cases of pilotless aircraft doing a
> halfway decent job of flying and landing themselves. I've
> heard of it with respect to Cubs and Champs that were
> hand-propped without being tied down, and gliders that the
> pilot bailed out of. I'm not saying they were all fully
> roll stable in level flight, but it is not true that "Every
> one of them will end up in a pile of aluminum oxide if the
> controls are released."

Logically, if the airplane is well designed, and if there are no
disturbances to its equilibrium in straight and level flight, it will
not suddenly spiral out of control. Some types of disturbances to
that equilibrium may encourage instabilities that will take the
aircraft out of straight and level flight. These instabilities may
damp themselves out, returning the aircraft to straight and level or
something close to it, or they may reinforce themselves over time,
ultimately becoming serious enough to drive the aircraft into terrain.

There are a lot of possibilities. Asserting that all aircraft (or
even all GA aircraft) will crash shortly after one takes one's hands
off the controls is overly extreme and broad.

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

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Garret writes:
>
>> When it's trimmed as well as I
>> can manage and the air is smooth, my SR22 still rolls a few tenths of a
>> degree per second.
>
> But it has a parachute, doesn't it?
>

Way to go, manic!! You just scored another tally mark in your bid for
usenet idiot of the month. You really don't know how stupid you sound most
of the time, do you?

[N2310D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> It depends on how they are designed. They can be designed for
> stability. But the more stable an aircraft is, the harder it is to
> maneuver, so there are usually compromises.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

WooHoo!! Right out of sixth-grade general science.
Teach us more.
Do you get all your prattle out of wikipedia?

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> I suppose you can, but that would be an exceedingly foolish thing to do.

I agree. But there are a number of things about the SR22 that strike
me as foolish.

> To begin with, the plane *is* unstable (unless the autopilot is engaged
> and working properly). That is just a fact (notwithstanding what your
> simulator has to say about it).

Is this what the manual says, or what independent tests have
concluded, or what?

> Sorry, Anthony, there is simply no way around the fact that flying a
> real airplane in IMC is significantly harder than you think it is.

Well, maybe flying a SR22 in IMC is significantly hard, from the way
you describe it. But one cannot say that all IMC flight is equally
hard, nor can one say across the board that all aircraft are
inherently unstable and will crash themselves without human
intervention in minutes.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, A Lieberma > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Notice that my answers send him elsewhere and underscore the
>> inaccuracy of his ideas? ;-)
>
> Here lies the problem... IT DOES NOT send him elsewhere. He only
> replies back with more bizarre answers.
>
That also works for the reasonably intelligent reader. The more bizarre
his answers, the better.

> The best thing to rid of a troll is to totally ignore him.
>
It doesn't appear that Anthony cares much about getting answers one way or
the other. Ignoring him won't stop his misinformed posting, and if those
posts go unanswered, the unsuspecting reader may take them as the final
word on the topic. That's why I think calling B.S. on the misinformation
may be more effective.

Neil

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > I suppose you can, but that would be an exceedingly foolish thing to do.
>
> I agree. But there are a number of things about the SR22 that strike
> me as foolish.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion.

> > To begin with, the plane *is* unstable (unless the autopilot is engaged
> > and working properly). That is just a fact (notwithstanding what your
> > simulator has to say about it).
>
> Is this what the manual says, or what independent tests have
> concluded, or what?

Personal experience. It is also self-evidently true. See below.

> > Sorry, Anthony, there is simply no way around the fact that flying a
> > real airplane in IMC is significantly harder than you think it is.
>
> Well, maybe flying a SR22 in IMC is significantly hard, from the way
> you describe it. But one cannot say that all IMC flight is equally
> hard,

Who ever said it was? Some planes are certainly harder to fly in IMC
than others. But they are all harder than you think.

> nor can one say across the board that all aircraft are
> inherently unstable and will crash themselves without human
> intervention in minutes.

Of course one can say that because it is true.

Not only is it true, it is self-evidently true. If it were not true,
then an airplane in bank with neutral aileron would tend to level
itself. They do not (and a good thing too or it would be very hard to
do a steep turn). If it were true there would be no need for
single-axis autopilots, and yet there is a thriving market in such
devices. If it were not true then it would be possible to build a
single-axis autopilot without a gyro (by using whatever mechanism an
airplane naturally uses to right itself). But there is no such
mechanism, which is why all autopilots use gyros. (And if you're
tempted to reply by saying "dihedral", that produces roll *rate*
stability, not roll stability. They are not the same thing. Roll rate
stability will slow down the rate at which the plane flops over, but it
will not prevent it from flopping over.)

Absent a gyro (or some equivalent mechanical contrivance) there is no
way a plane can "know" the local gravity vector and hence no way it can
right itself. It is therefore impossible for an airplane to be roll
stable (unless it is in perfect trim and there are no external roll
forces).

rg

[Mxsmanic]

N2310D writes:

> Do you get all your prattle out of wikipedia?

No. I get some of it from the FAA (as in this case, if I remember
correctly). I also get a lot from textbooks, manuals, standard
reference materials, and reliable online resources. In some cases I
get it directly from people I believe to be qualified to provide it
(which is not the same as people who _claim_ to be qualified--there
isn't always a lot of overlap).

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Garret writes:
>
>> I suppose you can, but that would be an exceedingly foolish thing to do.
>
> I agree. But there are a number of things about the SR22 that strike
> me as foolish.

Oh good God, I can't wait. Please Anthony tell us what else about the SR22
is foolish.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> You'll have to forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion.

There's nothing to forgive. You're entitled to your own opinion.

I'm not an expert on aircraft, but some of the stuff I've read about
Cirrus would make me uneasy about any product. It seems that they are
trying to sell the aircraft to inexperienced pilots by placing
emphasis on gadgets, and by proposing a parachute system that really
isn't much use except in a few specific circumstances. I get the
impression that they want potential buyers to believe that the
parachute will get them out of any trouble, and not just the tiny
number of scenarios in which it might make a difference. Remember
Cory Lidle saying "it's got a parachute," even though that made zero
difference in his case.

Plus it has that unreliable G1000 on board. I'm not an aircraft
expert, but I know a great deal about computers, and seeing that
amount of computer automation in a safety-of-life application makes me
extremely nervous.

> Personal experience. It is also self-evidently true. See below.

Well, no, it's not self-evidently true. There are many situations in
aerodynamics that are inherently stable.

> Who ever said it was? Some planes are certainly harder to fly in IMC
> than others. But they are all harder than you think.

Maybe.

> Not only is it true, it is self-evidently true. If it were not true,
> then an airplane in bank with neutral aileron would tend to level
> itself.

Some do. A 737 will do this. Many aircraft will do it for shallow
bank angles.

> They do not (and a good thing too or it would be very hard to
> do a steep turn).

It apparently varies a great deal by aircraft. Some aircraft will
increase the bank angle from any starting angle until you stop them,
others will level out from just about any angle, and still others will
do one or the other, depending on the starting angle.

> Absent a gyro (or some equivalent mechanical contrivance) there is no
> way a plane can "know" the local gravity vector and hence no way it can
> right itself. It is therefore impossible for an airplane to be roll
> stable (unless it is in perfect trim and there are no external roll
> forces).

So how did that glider land by itself?

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> karl gruber writes:
>
>
>>All GA aircraft..................ALL..............have spiral instability.
>
>
> That's a broad statement. You're familiar with all of them.

Yes we all are.


>
> It's possible to build an aircraft without spiral instability.

Of course it is but it's not desirable.


> Whether this is often done in practice, I don't know.

You don't know anything but speak as if you do.


I'm not
> familiar with every aircraft ever built.

You're an idiot.



>
>
>>Barons are no exception, and have MUCH more spiral instability than most.
>
>
> How many hours do you have in the Baron?
>

How is this relavant to anything?

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No, wrong. They all do.
>
>
> It depends on how they are designed. They can be designed for
> stability.

They can be but they're not.



But the more stable an aircraft is, the harder it is to
> maneuver, so there are usually compromises.

You wouldn't have the slightest idea about that and yet you continue to
spout off.

[Newps]

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


>
> There are quite a few cases of pilotless aircraft doing a
> halfway decent job of flying and landing themselves. I've
> heard of it with respect to Cubs

A Cub is one of the least stable of all.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Plus it [the SR22] has that unreliable G1000 on board.

No, it doesn't.

> I'm not an aircraft expert

Indeed.

> but I know a great deal about computers

I doubt that. Computer skills are much in demand throughout the world.
If you truly possessed them you would not be living in poverty.

> and seeing that
> amount of computer automation in a safety-of-life application makes me
> extremely nervous.

You are entitled to your uninformed opinion.

> > Not only is it true, it is self-evidently true. If it were not true,
> > then an airplane in bank with neutral aileron would tend to level
> > itself.
>
> Some do. A 737 will do this.

Not a real one. Not with the autopilot off.

> So how did that glider land by itself?

A fair bit of luck I imagine. There's a reason events like that make
the news. Also, gliders have more slip-roll coupling than airplanes.
See:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/roll.html#sec-roll-stability

My guess would be that this makes them more stable but still not stable.
But I don't know, I've never flown a glider. Perhaps a glider pilot
could weigh in here?

rg

[Morgans[_2_]]

"
>> Here lies the problem... IT DOES NOT send him elsewhere. He only
>> replies back with more bizarre answers.
>>
> That also works for the reasonably intelligent reader. The more bizarre
> his answers, the better.
>
>> The best thing to rid of a troll is to totally ignore him.
>>
> It doesn't appear that Anthony cares much about getting answers one way or
> the other. Ignoring him won't stop his misinformed posting, and if those
> posts go unanswered, the unsuspecting reader may take them as the final
> word on the topic. That's why I think calling B.S. on the misinformation
> may be more effective.

I see both of your points. I was using the "calling the cards" method, and
getting him to answer with even more bizarre answer method, too. I think it may
have helped some others see the light. To some, I just was picking on the poor
little fellow.

But it is best to totally ignore trolls.

Which is best? I don't know.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Yes we all are.

No, you are not. I rather doubt that there is anyone on this planet
who has flown every aircraft in existence.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Garret writes:

> No, it doesn't.

I thought a G1000 was standard.

> I doubt that. Computer skills are much in demand throughout the world.
> If you truly possessed them you would not be living in poverty.

Here's an interesting test: List the things that you are doing in this
discussion that I am not. The results might be instructive.

> Not a real one. Not with the autopilot off.

How many hours do you have in 737s?

> But I don't know, I've never flown a glider.

But you know what 737s do, especially with the autopilot off. I
didn't know that you worked for the airlines.

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Yes we all are.
>
>
> No, you are not. I rather doubt that there is anyone on this planet
> who has flown every aircraft in existence.

Didn't say anybody has flown all of them. Go back and reread what was
written and brush up on your reading comprehension. You don't do
anything else of value all day, may as well do that.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>
> How many hours do you have in 737s?

So this is a standard answer when you are proven wrong? You have zero
hours in anything and you are concerned about the number of hours
somebody has in an airliner? You get dumber by the day.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> So this is a standard answer when you are proven wrong? You have zero
> hours in anything and you are concerned about the number of hours
> somebody has in an airliner? You get dumber by the day.

Newps,

Why you give this guy the time of day is beyond me.

You deal with aviation day in and day out, pushing tin, knowing what
airspeeds they can do, and performance factors and this guy is going to
question your experience disrespectfully????

Trolls need to be ignored :-) (Mx that is, NOT YOU!!!)

Allen

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:


>
> Newps,
>
> Why you give this guy the time of day is beyond me.
>
> You deal with aviation day in and day out, pushing tin, knowing what
> airspeeds they can do, and performance factors and this guy is going to
> question your experience disrespectfully????

It's fun to pick on idiots. This guy could be FAA management, they're
that dumb too.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> This guy could be FAA management, they're
> that dumb too.

Yeah, sorta can relate...

I am a gubment retiree as of two months ago (I lead a very boring life to
spend this much time on newsgroups!) and the management for the agency I
worked for would give Mx a run for his money for the stupidity I had to put
up with.

And here I always thought I had job security in the throes of computer IT.
Management thought it was best that they get rid of all IT support and put
them back into direct line public service. 500 computers statewide, 25
offices with servers and they decide to disband the IT support?

My option, took early out :-) and flew away (literally and figuratively to
keep this on topic)!

You can bet this person appreciates the value of your job being on the
other side of a real microphone talking to a real person in a real ATC
facility.

Or maybe I live in a sim world and think it's reality when I take flight
LOL

Allen

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:


> You can bet this person appreciates the value of your job being on the
> other side of a real microphone talking to a real person in a real ATC
> facility.

I have just under 7 years until I am eligible. Current FAA management
has completely sucked the life out of this job. I am outta here the
first day I can go or earlier if other things pan out.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
>> Why you give this guy the time of day is beyond me.
>>
>> You deal with aviation day in and day out, pushing tin, knowing what
>> airspeeds they can do, and performance factors and this guy is going to
>> question your experience disrespectfully????
>
> It's fun to pick on idiots. This guy could be FAA management, they're
> that dumb too.



<Snicker> Now there's a scary thought.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> So this is a standard answer when you are proven wrong?

No, it's just a standard question that I ask of people who have made
assertions concerning 737s (or similar aircraft).

> You have zero
> hours in anything and you are concerned about the number of hours
> somebody has in an airliner? You get dumber by the day.

You haven't answered my question.

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

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> I thought a G1000 was standard.

You thought wrong. A little humility (and a visit to the Cirrus web
site) would serve you well at this point.

> > I doubt that. Computer skills are much in demand throughout the world.
> > If you truly possessed them you would not be living in poverty.
>
> Here's an interesting test: List the things that you are doing in this
> discussion that I am not. The results might be instructive.

Among other things, I am relating experiences gained from flying real
airplanes (which is the matter at hand on both of these newsgroups). I
have also offered to take you flying so that you can get some firsthand
experience of your own, an offer you claim not to be able to avail
yourself of for want of $650.

Was that as instructive as you thought it would be?

> > Not a real one. Not with the autopilot off.
>
> How many hours do you have in 737s?

In real ones? At least as many as you do. In (badly) simulated no
doubt I have far fewer.

> > But I don't know, I've never flown a glider.
>
> But you know what 737s do, especially with the autopilot off.

Yes.

> I didn't know that you worked for the airlines.

I don't. Your inability to think of any other possible way I might have
come by this information shows an appalling lack of imagination. I am
beginning to see why you might confuse simulation with reality.

rg

[Mxsmanic]

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

> Refreshing my
> memory, one of the guys on the Aeronca mail list describes a
> flight from Urbana, Ohio where the pilotless craft reached
> 13,000' and 100 miles from departure, being chased by the
> Highway Patrol in one of their JetRanger helicopters. Fuel
> exhaustion eventually brought it down.

Are these verifiable stories, or merely urban legends? While I don't
see anything technically impossible about it, it seems a bit
improbable.

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

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t writes:
> > Refreshing my
> > memory, one of the guys on the Aeronca mail list describes a
> > flight from Urbana, Ohio where the pilotless craft reached
> > 13,000' and 100 miles from departure, being chased by the
> > Highway Patrol in one of their JetRanger helicopters. Fuel
> > exhaustion eventually brought it down.
>
> Are these verifiable stories, or merely urban legends? While I don't
> see anything technically impossible about it, it seems a bit
> improbable.

Here's an example of a pilotless airplane that got away after a hand
propping. It didn't fly straight, and didn't land by itself (never got
the chance :-)

http://www.navy.gov.au/units/805sqn/documents/Auster_Shootdown.pdf

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I thought
>

Nice try. Your simulation of thought is deficient.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Are these verifiable stories, or merely urban legends? While I don't
> see anything technically impossible about it, it seems a bit
> improbable.

I live in Ohio. The Ohio incident happened. It does not appear
in the NTSB accident database, because no pilot was aboard, and
that's NTSB Regs they must follow. Why are you so sure you have
all the answers and others are full of it?

F--

[A Lieberma]

TxSrv > wrote in
:

> I live in Ohio. The Ohio incident happened. It does not appear
> in the NTSB accident database, because no pilot was aboard, and
> that's NTSB Regs they must follow. Why are you so sure you have
> all the answers and others are full of it?

Because this is the trademark of a troll.

Best thing to do is not to respond to his posts.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> I live in Ohio. The Ohio incident happened. It does not appear
> in the NTSB accident database, because no pilot was aboard, and
> that's NTSB Regs they must follow. Why are you so sure you have
> all the answers and others are full of it?

I was asking a question, not giving an answer. You will experience
less stress if you stop projecting non-existent motivations and
intentions onto my posts.

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