Out of date charts on Airnav

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

I was planning a trip, and in addition to the standard Jepp charts, eFlyBook
(another saga), I also print out a few of the FAA charts (larger, easier to
read at night, can scribble on them, etc).

However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
current(??)

Has anyone else noticed this? Are the FAA or AOPA sites any easier to access
and print?

[Stan Prevost]

I don't see how it could be much easier than the FAA site
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp .


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>I was planning a trip, and in addition to the standard Jepp charts,
>eFlyBook (another saga), I also print out a few of the FAA charts (larger,
>easier to read at night, can scribble on them, etc).
>
> However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
> noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
> current(??)
>
> Has anyone else noticed this? Are the FAA or AOPA sites any easier to
> access and print?
>

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
> noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
> current(??)

You're not supposed to use charts from AirNav for navigation.

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

[Kingfish]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> I don't see how it could be much easier than the FAA site
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp .
>

Are there any sites that have current VFR sectionals and/or low enroute
charts to print?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Are there any sites that have current VFR sectionals and/or low enroute
> charts to print?

skyvector.com does.

http://skyvector.com/#16-15-3-2886-2532
is the Danbury area.

http://www.flying20club.org/library.html
has a few other interesting sites.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> Are there any sites that have current VFR sectionals and/or low enroute
> charts to print?

SkyVector is a Google-Map-like service that lets you examine U.S. VFR
charts (sectionals and TACs) online, but it is not intended for use in
real-world navigation (however, the charts are current):

http://www.skyvector.com

I don't know of a source for online IFR charts, but if there is one,
I'd like to hear about it.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Since when? Besides, I only simulate flying in my real Baron.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Since when?

Since always. There are disclaimers on the site, such as "NOT FOR
NAVIGATION. Please procure official charts for flight."

> Besides, I only simulate flying in my real Baron.

If you have a real Baron, why (and how) would you simulate flight?

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Thanks. I was partial to the Airnav site, since it also gave info on FBO's,
rental cars, nearby restaurants, etc., as well as the charts.

Wasn't too happy with AOPA, since it took too much navigating to get the
charts. Airnav was pretty easy.

Will go to NACO now for the latest.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Thanks. I was partial to the Airnav site, since it also gave info on FBO's,
> rental cars, nearby restaurants, etc., as well as the charts.
>
> Wasn't too happy with AOPA, since it took too much navigating to get the
> charts. Airnav was pretty easy.
>
> Will go to NACO now for the latest.

I suspect the AirNav stuff is identical to the "real" charts, and the
disclaimer is mainly a legal requirement. The same holds true for
other sites such as SkyVector. That way, if you use information from
these sites, and if by unfortunate chance it happens to contain any
kind of error, and you kill yourself in a plane as a result, it's your
fault, not the fault of the sites in question. But in practice, it's
the same information in the same format.

There are times when I think the obsession with using only
"authorized" and "certified" charts is a bit pathological. I can
understand avoiding outdated charts, but when you can get a scan of a
current chart online, where's the risk in using it? Are details on
the charge going to be mystically mutated by the simple act of
scanning them?

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

[[email protected]]

> Viperdoc writes:
> > However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
> > noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
> > current(??)

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> You're not supposed to use charts from AirNav for navigation.

The Flight Guide says "not for navigation" too, but their airport
diagrams, readily obvious illustrations of reporting points, traffic
patterns and other details make it a very valuable cockpit resource, as
long as you keep it updated, IMO. If we eliminated all the stuff that
says "not for navigation", we'd have a lot less useful info at our
fingertips.

[M[_1_]]

> I suspect the AirNav stuff is identical to the "real" charts,

They *are* the real charts. Airnav links to the NACO website for the
PDF files. They were just lagged a bit in updating the links to the
updated cycle on NACO during the last few days.

Whether a chart is current or not has *nothing* to do with the dates
printed on the edge of NACO chart. Each chart has a serial number
printed at the lower left hand.
(http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0613/00142IL16R.PDF for example, has
"Amdt20 06103"). It means the chart is last revisioned on the 130th
day of 2006. As long as the most recent chart on NACO has the same
serial number you chart is still current. It doesn't matter if you
printed it out 3 years ago.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The Flight Guide says "not for navigation" too, but their airport
> diagrams, readily obvious illustrations of reporting points, traffic
> patterns and other details make it a very valuable cockpit resource, as
> long as you keep it updated, IMO. If we eliminated all the stuff that
> says "not for navigation", we'd have a lot less useful info at our
> fingertips.

That's why I think it a bit bizarre that so much is still marked "not
for navigation," even when it is manifestly identical to the
"official" materials.

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

[GeorgeC]

Agreed. I always use the FAA site. Some of the other sites aren't current,
especial near the end of the cycle.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:37:57 -0600, "Stan Prevost" > wrote:

>I don't see how it could be much easier than the FAA site
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp .
>
>
>"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>>I was planning a trip, and in addition to the standard Jepp charts,
>>eFlyBook (another saga), I also print out a few of the FAA charts (larger,
>>easier to read at night, can scribble on them, etc).
>>
>> However, on downloading and printing a chart from the Airnav website, I
>> noticed that they were from the last cycle, so might not be valid or
>> current(??)
>>
>> Has anyone else noticed this? Are the FAA or AOPA sites any easier to
>> access and print?
>>
>

GeorgeC

[John T]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t
>
>> Are there any sites that have current VFR sectionals and/or low
>> enroute charts to print?
>
> skyvector.com does.
>
> http://skyvector.com/#16-15-3-2886-2532
> is the Danbury area.

While I like SkyVector, pay attention to the print in the top right corner:

<quote>
Don't go flying with this website! Purchase a real chart, and come back
alive to visit us again.
</quote>

I don't know of any official sources for chart downloads. Even if there
were, printing them would be a beast of a task - especially for any
significant XC.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Mxsmanic]

John T writes:

> I don't know of any official sources for chart downloads. Even if there
> were, printing them would be a beast of a task - especially for any
> significant XC.

You could read them on a laptop, which would have the added advantage
of illumination at night.

However, I think all the sectionals are prepared by hand, and they
depend on physical techniques such as overprinting, so you probably
won't see PDFs any time soon. Still, it would be nice to be able to
download scans, or anything. And I don't see why they wouldn't be
free, since they are government produced and carry no copyright.

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

[Doug Spencer]

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:09:33 +0100
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> John T writes:
>
> > I don't know of any official sources for chart downloads. Even if there
> > were, printing them would be a beast of a task - especially for any
> > significant XC.
>
> You could read them on a laptop, which would have the added advantage
> of illumination at night.
>
> However, I think all the sectionals are prepared by hand, and they
> depend on physical techniques such as overprinting, so you probably
> won't see PDFs any time soon. Still, it would be nice to be able to
> download scans, or anything. And I don't see why they wouldn't be
> free, since they are government produced and carry no copyright.

His subscription ran out so they are now out of date, but Kyler hosts
FAA supplied TIFF sectionals at
http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA/sectionals/ .

Being an electronic format, you can convert them to whatever you want.
Imagemagick worked very well for me to convert them to compressed JPG
or PNG files and store the whole USA on a 1GB memory card to view on a
handheld. It was lot more compact than carrying and unfolding a bunch
of paper charts.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Spencer writes:

> Being an electronic format, you can convert them to whatever you want.
> Imagemagick worked very well for me to convert them to compressed JPG
> or PNG files and store the whole USA on a 1GB memory card to view on a
> handheld. It was lot more compact than carrying and unfolding a bunch
> of paper charts.

You can't convert from scans to PDF, though. PDF is a lot cleaner.

Airport diagrams and plates are now in PDF format, but the charts are
not. I can see a number of technical problems with converting them,
beyond the labor required to rebuild them from scratch.

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> You can't convert from scans to PDF, though. PDF is a lot cleaner.

This statement is an outright lie.

Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done scanning,
Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> I don't know of a source for online IFR charts, but if there is one,
> I'd like to hear about it.
>

Then you have't looked hard enough.

http://www.myairplane.com.

Consider yourself pwned in this thread. Twice.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmWrbyBkZmuMZ8L8RAq7MAJ9NR2QpTKyNoRbfYna3le jBcI8T9QCfREo7
ppJlMZchYgaw0uOTO2uNCVM=
=Wm55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jose[_1_]]

>>You can't convert from scans to PDF, though. PDF is a lot cleaner.
> This statement is an outright lie.
> Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done scanning,
> Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.

Perhaps you deliberately misconstrue what he means. A PDF of a scan is
just that - a scan that has been encapsulated by a foreign format. It's
sort of like making a flash presentation out of one jpeg. Sure the
picture is there, but it is no improvement on the original.

What I suspect he means is that you can't (easily) create the formatted
text and individual graphics elements which make up a well-put-together
pdf of a document (such as an approach plate). Done that way, PDF is in
fact a lot cleaner. In the case of enroute charts, to do it "cleanly"
would probably require re-originating the charts as vector graphics and
oriented text elements.

> Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done scanning,
> Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.

Will this result in a vectorized version, or a simple graphic
encapsulated by the PDF envelope? IF the former, I'd be very impressed
- it would go beyond OCR (which itself is still not terrific). IF the
latter, there's no advantage to encapsulating it as a PDF, and many
disadvantages.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marty Shapiro]

Jose > wrote in
om:

>>>You can't convert from scans to PDF, though. PDF is a lot cleaner.
>> This statement is an outright lie.
>> Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done
>> scanning, Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.
>
> Perhaps you deliberately misconstrue what he means. A PDF of a scan
> is just that - a scan that has been encapsulated by a foreign format.
> It's sort of like making a flash presentation out of one jpeg. Sure
> the picture is there, but it is no improvement on the original.
>
> What I suspect he means is that you can't (easily) create the
> formatted text and individual graphics elements which make up a
> well-put-together pdf of a document (such as an approach plate). Done
> that way, PDF is in fact a lot cleaner. In the case of enroute
> charts, to do it "cleanly" would probably require re-originating the
> charts as vector graphics and oriented text elements.
>
>> Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done
>> scanning, Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.
>
> Will this result in a vectorized version, or a simple graphic
> encapsulated by the PDF envelope? IF the former, I'd be very
> impressed - it would go beyond OCR (which itself is still not
> terrific). IF the latter, there's no advantage to encapsulating it as
> a PDF, and many disadvantages.
>
> Jose

Are you a mind reader? I know I'm not.

The original statement simply said "You can't convert from scans to PDF,
though."

Where is there any qualifier about the internal structure of the PDF in
this statement? I don't see one. If there is one, please point it out. I
responded to the statement as made by the OP, not to what I might
conjecture the OP meant to say.

In and of itself, the statement made by the OP is not true.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> This statement is an outright lie.

Not for people who understand how PDF works.

> Start Acrobat, click on "file", "import", and "scan". When done scanning,
> Acrobat will convert the scan into a PDF.

The "conversion" consists of putting the bitmapped image into a PDF
wrapper. That's dramatically different (and hugely larger) than a
native PDF.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> What I suspect he means is that you can't (easily) create the formatted
> text and individual graphics elements which make up a well-put-together
> pdf of a document (such as an approach plate).

Yes.

> Done that way, PDF is in
> fact a lot cleaner. In the case of enroute charts, to do it "cleanly"
> would probably require re-originating the charts as vector graphics and
> oriented text elements.

Yes. It would be easy for IFR charts, but quite difficult for VFR
charts, because they have a lot of overlapping elements that depend on
overprinted ink for partial transparency. You can see that they are
hand-drawn if you look closely. They must be a nightmare to maintain.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> The original statement simply said "You can't convert from scans to PDF,
> though."

Which is true.

> Where is there any qualifier about the internal structure of the PDF in
> this statement? I don't see one.

Since a scan is a type of data (a bitmapped image), "conversion to
PDF" implies conversion of bitmapped data to vectorized data. This is
implicit to anyone with an understanding of these technologies.
Conversion from, say, JPG to PDF would mean something different, as
those are both file formats.

> In and of itself, the statement made by the OP is not true.

It is true, but you don't understand it. You would gain more by
trying to understand it than by calling anyone who describes something
you don't understand a liar.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Then you have't looked hard enough.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com.
>
> Consider yourself pwned in this thread. Twice.

I've tried that site before. It doesn't work. And even if it did
work, it would be extraordinarily difficult to use.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Are you a mind reader?

Yes, I am, though I'm rusty. There's nothing to practice on anymore. :)

Actually, we are all mind readers. Words do not transmit thoughts
completely, accurately, or reliably, and in order to reconstruct the
intended meaning, we apply context. Sometimes we get it wrong, but I
don't think I did this time.

> In and of itself, the statement made by the OP is not true.

Context is important. But even though the above statement =is= true
(that the statement you referred to, taken at face value, is false),
your comment went further. You said:

> This statement is an outright lie.

.... which is not the same as "That statement is false". (I will also
note, but not comment on, the misuse of the word "This", leading to a
logical connundrum in your response, if =it= is taken at face value). A
"lie" is a statement =deliberately= made to deceive. An outright lie is
one which is brazen in its deception. I'm sure you didn't quite mean
that either, but rather, wanted to say something insulting and
inflamatory to somebody who annoys you.

I find that, especially with Mx's statements (or at least the ones I
see) the application of sufficient context can reveal the source of
misunderstandings (on his part and on his audience's part too). That is
the beginning of communcation.

Mind reading, if you will.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Then you have't looked hard enough.
>>
>> http://www.myairplane.com.
>>
>> Consider yourself pwned in this thread. Twice.
>
> I've tried that site before. It doesn't work. And even if it did
> work, it would be extraordinarily difficult to use.

Actually, it does work. It requires IE6 for it to work. I have
only used it less than a handful of times (I am primarily a Linux
user), but it does indeed work. You just haven't tried hard enough.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmb9FyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhYoAJ4wz3AZhCnjv5LDnXzuyz ipeQzkvQCgjrd7
o3fylQnwhvFkdhHCLjAcg38=
=sUok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Buck Murdock]

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Actually, it does work. It requires IE6 for it to work.

A site that can't function with any browser but IE6 *is* broken.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Buck Murdock > wrote:
> In article >,
> A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:
>
>> Actually, it does work. It requires IE6 for it to work.
>
> A site that can't function with any browser but IE6 *is* broken.

Touche. ;)

The rest of the site works great. I can pull up charts with
Opera, Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, and Xpdf without any problems.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmfomyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtsMAKD1q3bx/0Tc0Ehv84Trdoq3Ugdh+gCg+X+e
BCckfuH7x6cj9csNfZyei24=
=s2CE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Actually, it does work. It requires IE6 for it to work.

I tried it with IE6, and it still didn't work.

Note, however, that I have security set very high, and the site
probably attempts to do some insecure things.

In any case, I prefer SkyVector's implementation for reading charts,
which is vastly simpler. I periodically visit their advertisers, too,
in order to keep them solvent (some of the ads are interesting,
anyway).

> I have
> only used it less than a handful of times (I am primarily a Linux
> user), but it does indeed work. You just haven't tried hard enough.

It's not my job to "try hard enough." It's too impractical to use.
I'm usually in flight when I need it, anyway.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Actually, it does work. It requires IE6 for it to work.
>
> I tried it with IE6, and it still didn't work.

PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

> Note, however, that I have security set very high, and the site
> probably attempts to do some insecure things.

You're wrong. It does not. Too bad you're so paranoid.

> In any case, I prefer SkyVector's implementation for reading charts,
> which is vastly simpler. I periodically visit their advertisers, too,
> in order to keep them solvent (some of the ads are interesting,
> anyway).
>
>> I have
>> only used it less than a handful of times (I am primarily a Linux
>> user), but it does indeed work. You just haven't tried hard enough.
>
> It's not my job to "try hard enough." It's too impractical to use.
> I'm usually in flight when I need it, anyway.

Then it is too late. You should ALWAYS (sim and real world) do
your chartfinding and flight planning BEFORE you jump in the plane. All
of that is on the ground.

If this is how you do things, I hope to never be in a flight
with you.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmqNLyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvY7AKDolsyGX6duzWw3MVvkCS o+Dc7yEwCg4FlW
wy8vp+L7gIIESu+hG7eEpfg=
=s3P6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

No, I suspect it's a security issue.

> You're wrong. It does not. Too bad you're so paranoid.

I'm the only person I know whose computer has never been infected by a
virus.

> Then it is too late. You should ALWAYS (sim and real world) do
> your chartfinding and flight planning BEFORE you jump in the plane. All
> of that is on the ground.

Then why do you need charts in the aircraft?

Plans can change, also.

> If this is how you do things, I hope to never be in a flight
> with you.

That possibility is extremely remote, so rest assured.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>I'm the only person I know whose computer has never been infected by a
>virus.

Meet my family: 3 Linux computers (not counting the TiVos) and 5
Macintoshes (not counting too many iPods to count), and no viruses, ever.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
You really know you're in trouble when your boss decides upon a suicide
pact... and agrees to go first.
-- Chris King

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.
>
> No, I suspect it's a security issue.

You would be wrong again. If there were a security issue, it
would have been reported to them and they would have either a) taken
the whole thing down, or b) mentioned that there was a security issue
and have fixed it.

Since neither has happened, your hypothesis, like your logic,
is flawed.

>> You're wrong. It does not. Too bad you're so paranoid.
>
> I'm the only person I know whose computer has never been infected by a
> virus.

There has never been a virus created in Linux. If you used it,
you would have known that. Next time, add some seasonings to your foot.
It'll taste better in your mouth.

>> Then it is too late. You should ALWAYS (sim and real world) do
>> your chartfinding and flight planning BEFORE you jump in the plane. All
>> of that is on the ground.
>
> Then why do you need charts in the aircraft?

I never said you didn't need charts in the aircraft. But the
makings of a good pilot start at the preplanning stage. as PIC, you
should know where you are going, how to get there, what charts to use,
and how to fly them. If you don't, and you are looking for the charts
inflight because you don't have them, you're screwed. Good case in
point: listen to the LiveATC feed of the guy who flew into OSH last
year, and did not have the charts on hand for entering the airspace,
and how much he was blasted for it by ATC.

****poor planning on your part should not and does not
constitute an emergency on ATC's part. YOU are PIC. YOU are responsible
for being prepared, not anyone else. If you can't, don't fly.

> Plans can change, also.

True, plans can change. But that does not mean that you should
be totally void of charts, which you claimed to have been, as you had
said it would be too late to look them up as you would already be en
route.

The Dilbert Rule is definitely starting to apply to you.

>> If this is how you do things, I hope to never be in a flight
>> with you.
>
> That possibility is extremely remote, so rest assured.

We agree. It would be impossible for you to get a pilot's
license here. You don't have the makings of one, nor the calibre to be
one.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmsnwyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlzJAKCdEuJED4hDrzOEDZ1Fyq vGEbYqVACfdAKp
qNW5/2pquLgEyE/441POPMk=
=xS45
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> Meet my family: 3 Linux computers (not counting the TiVos) and 5
> Macintoshes (not counting too many iPods to count), and no viruses, ever.

They are infrequent targets. I run Windows, a very frequent target,
and I've still escaped virus infections.

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

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> You would be wrong again. If there were a security issue, it
> would have been reported to them and they would have either a) taken
> the whole thing down, or b) mentioned that there was a security issue
> and have fixed it.

A security issue on the client system was what I had in mind.

> Since neither has happened, your hypothesis, like your logic,
> is flawed.

I suggest you ask for clarification before drawing conclusions. It
saves time and face.

> There has never been a virus created in Linux.

Never is a strong word.

> If you used it, you would have known that.

I run UNIX, the operating system that Linux was intended to imitate.
I have had worm issues with UNIX.

> Next time, add some seasonings to your foot.
> It'll taste better in your mouth.

I don't understand this reference.

> I never said you didn't need charts in the aircraft.

I never said that I didn't plan flights in advance.

> But the makings of a good pilot start at the preplanning stage. as PIC, you
> should know where you are going, how to get there, what charts to use,
> and how to fly them. If you don't, and you are looking for the charts
> inflight because you don't have them, you're screwed.

Yes.

> ****poor planning on your part should not and does not
> constitute an emergency on ATC's part.

Anything that endangers your flight or other flights is a potential
emergency, irrespective of its cause.

> YOU are PIC. YOU are responsible
> for being prepared, not anyone else. If you can't, don't fly.

I'm aware of this, but thank you for pointing it out.

> True, plans can change. But that does not mean that you should
> be totally void of charts, which you claimed to have been, as you had
> said it would be too late to look them up as you would already be en
> route.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

> The Dilbert Rule is definitely starting to apply to you.

I'm not familiar with the Dilbert Rule. Do you have a FAR reference?

> It would be impossible for you to get a pilot's
> license here. You don't have the makings of one, nor the calibre to be
> one.

I'm not sure where "here" is, but I suspect I'd be an excellent pilot.

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

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm usually in flight when I need it, anyway.

No, you aren't.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> No, you aren't.

Yes, I am.

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

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gary writes:
>
> > No, you aren't.
>
> Yes, I am.
>

Only if you are playing with your simulator on a laptop, aboard a
commercial flight. If you are playing with your simulator while
sitting on the ground, you aren't in flight. You are only pretending
to be.

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gary writes:
>
> > No, you aren't.
>
> Yes, I am.
>

Only if you are playing with your simulator on a laptop, aboard a
commercial flight. If you are playing with your simulator while
sitting on the ground, you aren't in flight. You are only pretending
to be.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> You would be wrong again. If there were a security issue, it
>> would have been reported to them and they would have either a) taken
>> the whole thing down, or b) mentioned that there was a security issue
>> and have fixed it.
>
> A security issue on the client system was what I had in mind.
>
>> Since neither has happened, your hypothesis, like your logic,
>> is flawed.
>
> I suggest you ask for clarification before drawing conclusions. It
> saves time and face.

Why should I have to ask you for clarifications? You're the one
making the statement, and therefore should have your facts lined up to
support your claim. It isn't up to us to prove you wrong; you have to
prove yourself right. You failed to back up your claim. Not my problem.

>> There has never been a virus created in Linux.
>
> Never is a strong word.

Never is a strong, solid word. Google around for it; over the
past 16 years, there has not been one virus targeted for the Linux
platform.

>> If you used it, you would have known that.
>
> I run UNIX, the operating system that Linux was intended to imitate.
> I have had worm issues with UNIX.

Worms are not, nor have ever been, a virus. If you've used
Unix, and admin such a machine, you would know that as well.

>> Next time, add some seasonings to your foot.
>> It'll taste better in your mouth.
>
> I don't understand this reference.

Open mouth. Insert foot. Repeat, as you've done that many times
in this newsgroup.

>> I never said you didn't need charts in the aircraft.
>
> I never said that I didn't plan flights in advance.
>
>> But the makings of a good pilot start at the preplanning stage. as PIC, you
>> should know where you are going, how to get there, what charts to use,
>> and how to fly them. If you don't, and you are looking for the charts
>> inflight because you don't have them, you're screwed.
>
> Yes.
>
>> ****poor planning on your part should not and does not
>> constitute an emergency on ATC's part.
>
> Anything that endangers your flight or other flights is a potential
> emergency, irrespective of its cause.

Agreed. ****poor planning, including lack of charts for the
area you are flying in, especially midflight is an emergency. In this
case, that emergency could have been entirely avoided, if you had your
charts prior to departing, let alone stepping into the cockpit.

>> YOU are PIC. YOU are responsible
>> for being prepared, not anyone else. If you can't, don't fly.
>
> I'm aware of this, but thank you for pointing it out.

Good. You actually may be learning something.

>> True, plans can change. But that does not mean that you should
>> be totally void of charts, which you claimed to have been, as you had
>> said it would be too late to look them up as you would already be en
>> route.
>
> I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

Nope.. I was wrong.

Okay.. I guess I have to play dumb and put it simple for you.
Don't leave; don't walk towards a plane; do not even breathe in the
direction of an airplane until you have the charts on hand for where
you're departing from, and where you are arriving at. Want a good
reason? here:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php/topic,2147.0.html

You have to be logged in to hear the clip, but that is a damn
good reason to have those with you prior to doing a damn thing.
>> The Dilbert Rule is definitely starting to apply to you.
>
> I'm not familiar with the Dilbert Rule. Do you have a FAR reference?

I have a Dilbert reference. To quote Dogbert, which I should
take his advice now:

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drop you down to their
level, and beat you with experience."

>> It would be impossible for you to get a pilot's
>> license here. You don't have the makings of one, nor the calibre to be
>> one.
>
> I'm not sure where "here" is, but I suspect I'd be an excellent pilot.

See above. You don't have the calibre for it. Stick to driving.
Better yet, take the bus. It'll be safer for the rest of us.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFmvRDyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgY1AJ0RVm2dcxA/nGkw68MqTiaOknkJ/wCg3qwX
Xs2Mo3CBscwTT5ghYX5qRII=
=0toc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Okay.. I guess I have to play dumb ...

Well done!

> "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drop you down to their
> level, and beat you with experience."

I have no quarrel with that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> Only if you are playing with your simulator on a laptop, aboard a
> commercial flight. If you are playing with your simulator while
> sitting on the ground, you aren't in flight. You are only pretending
> to be.

I think that depends on the definition of flight.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Then it is too late. You should ALWAYS (sim and real world) do
>> your chartfinding and flight planning BEFORE you jump in the plane.
>> All of that is on the ground.
>
> Then why do you need charts in the aircraft?
>
Is this a serious question, or are you "calling his bluff"? Do you really
think that planning before the flight somehow obviates the need to carry
the charts on which you've planned?

> Plans can change, also.
>
Yet another good reason to carry the charts with you. Even so, good flight
planning would incorporate at least some of the likely
changes/alternatives to one's original intention.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Is this a serious question, or are you "calling his bluff"?

It is a serious question.

> Do you really think that planning before the flight somehow
> obviates the need to carry the charts on which you've planned?

Someone seemed to wish to imply that; I found that puzzling and tried
to verify.

> Yet another good reason to carry the charts with you. Even so, good flight
> planning would incorporate at least some of the likely
> changes/alternatives to one's original intention.

Yes.

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