Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)

[Mxsmanic]

What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
in certain conditions/areas?

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

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> in certain conditions/areas?

There was a video of a Yak that was making sparks on the runway. I
would say that's just about as low as you can go.

[BT]

if you would take a ground school course..
they would teach you the FARs
BT

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> in certain conditions/areas?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/02/07 09:46, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
>> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
>> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
>> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
>> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
>> in certain conditions/areas?
>
> There was a video of a Yak that was making sparks on the runway. I
> would say that's just about as low as you can go.
>

Well, I guess you can go lower if you don't mind making your own hole ;-\


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

[[email protected]]

Above open water, you can fly as low as you want, as long as you don't
buzz a boat or swimmer, etc.

Bud

On Jan 2, 9:07 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> in certain conditions/areas?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Above open water, you can fly as low as you want, as long as you don't
> buzz a boat or swimmer, etc.

That was always very frustrating for me when I was flying sea planes.
Even though technically for landing you can get closer our OPs Specs
required us to stay above 500feet w/i 1/2 mile of any person, structure
of vessel. That made it hard sometimes to land. We'd fly final weaving
around to avoid getting close to water skiiers. Sometimes they'd come
right up to us as we're taking off. Very frustrating. On a giant lake
these little skiiers would seek you out. Sometimes, flying between the
canyon walls setting up for landing, you'd come upon a boat sitting
there fishing. Nothing you can do about that.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

BT wrote:
> if you would take a ground school course..
> they would teach you the FARs
> BT

Or buy the King course.

[[email protected]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> >above the ground in the U.S.?

> It requires a minimum of:
> "An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open
> water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the
> aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
> person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
>
> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.

In Canada it's the same, with the proviso attached "except
when taking off or landing." It would be impossible to land or take off
at most airports if we had to stay 500' away from any person,
structure, vehicle or vessel.
Low flying kills people. There are unmarked wires, big birds,
unmarked or unlighted towers of all sorts. An engine failure at low
altitude means no options but pretty much straight ahead into whatever
is there. We've experienced several birdstrikes near the ground, and
just west of here is a 100' tower that must be under the minimum for
lighting, and it blends in really well with the ground. Every so often
someone snags a powerline they didn't see.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> if you would take a ground school course..
> they would teach you the FARs

If you don't know the answer, you can save your time and not mine by
skipping the reply.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Above open water, you can fly as low as you want, as long as you don't
> buzz a boat or swimmer, etc.

And over land?

Which FAR prohibits buzzing boats or swimmers?

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

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> FAR 91.119

Thanks. It doesn't seem to define a "congested area," though, and I
don't see that in the general definitions, either. I wonder if that
just means Manhattan, or any area within city limits, or what.

> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.

Yes, but it doesn't say what makes a place a congested area.

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

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In Canada it's the same, with the proviso attached "except
> when taking off or landing."

91-119 also says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing ..."

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

[Doug[_1_]]

I consider it to be congested if it is subdivided into lots (as opposed
to agricultural land).

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On 2 Jan 2007 14:57:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.
>>Yes, but it doesn't say what makes a place a congested area.
>
>When you find out, tell us. The FAA seems happy to not
>define it and leave it to the pilot to prove it wasn't
>congested when they decide to say it is.

Bingo. The feds hold their cards close to their chest on this
one. It's congested if they say it's congested, and not if they
say it's not. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average
aviator to figure out which is which by reading and interpreting
the regs....

Bela P. Havasreti

[[email protected]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.
> >Yes, but it doesn't say what makes a place a congested area.
>
> When you find out, tell us. The FAA seems happy to not
> define it and leave it to the pilot to prove it wasn't
> congested when they decide to say it is.

LOL.

I recall at one time, people claiming that the yellow portions on a
sectional were the officially "congested" parts.

Kev

[BT]

if you know the answer.. why do you ask..

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> In Canada it's the same, with the proviso attached "except
>> when taking off or landing."
>
> 91-119 also says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing ..."
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

The minimum safe altitude is not dictated by the airspace, but by
whether you are VFR or IFR, and whether or not you are flying over
congested areas. For details see:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov and go to 14CFR Part 91 section 119.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> in certain conditions/areas?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> Bingo. The feds hold their cards close to their chest on this
> one. It's congested if they say it's congested, and not if they
> say it's not. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average
> aviator to figure out which is which by reading and interpreting
> the regs....

Exactly. And if you have an accident or someone complains, then it can
easily become "congested" :-)

Now if Mxsmanic says "well that's stupid, how does anyone know?", then
he's right. It's one of the zillion little you-know-it when-you-see-it
kind of rules in aviation. Like the vague "familiar with all
available information" rule. (14 CFR 91.103)

===

That said, here's some digging on "congested areas" that sheds a little
light:

Letter from a state aviation counsel:

http://www.aopa.org/epilot/redir.cfm?adid=8604

"There is no standard definition of what is a 'congested area' or 'open
air assembly of persons', but case law has indicated that a subdivision
of homes constitutes a congested area, as does a small rural town"

===

"General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order 8700.1".

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/

>From that (btw, check out Chapter 56, ramp inspections), we go to
Chapter 102. Although it's about helicopter load operations, it seems
to have the only definitions I've seen, vague as they are:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_102_00.pdf

"The congested nature of an area is defined by what exists on the
surface, not the size of the area. While the presence of the
nonparticipating public is the most important determination of
congested, the area may also be congested with structures or objects.
An area considered congested for airplane operations could be equally
congested for helicopters. If an airplane flying over a congested area
at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in violation of 14
CFR § 91.119(b), the area may also be a congested area for a
helicopter conducting external load operations. However, the most
important word in this concept is 'over.' Helicopters can operate over
relatively small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering
abilities.

(b) Densely Populated Area. Title 14 CFR §§ 91.313 and 133.45(d) use
the term "densely populated" area. Those areas of a city, town, or
settlement that contain a large number of occupied homes, factories,
stores, schools, and other structures are considered densely populated.
Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any buildings
but could consist of a large gathering of persons on a beach, at an
airshow, at a ball game, or at a fairground. NOTE: While the presence
of the nonparticipating public is the most important determination of
congested, this definition also applies to structures, buildings and
personal property. The congested nature of an area is defined by what
exists on the surface, not the size of the area."

Cheers,
Kev

[Roger[_4_]]

On 2 Jan 2007 10:36:53 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>> Above open water, you can fly as low as you want, as long as you don't
>> buzz a boat or swimmer, etc.

Same thing over land as long as you maintain the FAR clearances.

>
>That was always very frustrating for me when I was flying sea planes.
>Even though technically for landing you can get closer our OPs Specs
>required us to stay above 500feet w/i 1/2 mile of any person, structure

Around here that'd be impossible. On top of that it's not just water
skiiers, but boats and jet skies(personal watercraft) try to see just
how close they can get.

>of vessel. That made it hard sometimes to land. We'd fly final weaving
>around to avoid getting close to water skiiers. Sometimes they'd come
>right up to us as we're taking off. Very frustrating. On a giant lake
>these little skiiers would seek you out. Sometimes, flying between the
>canyon walls setting up for landing, you'd come upon a boat sitting
>there fishing. Nothing you can do about that.

Yup! I loved that opening scene from "Always". <:-))
>
>-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 2 Jan 2007 11:12:18 -0800, wrote:

>
>T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> >What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>> >above the ground in the U.S.?
>
>> It requires a minimum of:
>> "An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open
>> water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the
>> aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
>> person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
>>
>> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.
>
> In Canada it's the same, with the proviso attached "except
>when taking off or landing." It would be impossible to land or take off
>at most airports if we had to stay 500' away from any person,
>structure, vehicle or vessel.
> Low flying kills people. There are unmarked wires, big birds,

It's just Darwinism at its best.

>unmarked or unlighted towers of all sorts. An engine failure at low
>altitude means no options but pretty much straight ahead into whatever
>is there. We've experienced several birdstrikes near the ground, and
>just west of here is a 100' tower that must be under the minimum for
>lighting, and it blends in really well with the ground. Every so often
>someone snags a powerline they didn't see.
>
> Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:39:28 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:

>On 2 Jan 2007 14:57:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.
>>>Yes, but it doesn't say what makes a place a congested area.
>>
>>When you find out, tell us. The FAA seems happy to not
>>define it and leave it to the pilot to prove it wasn't
>>congested when they decide to say it is.
>
>Bingo. The feds hold their cards close to their chest on this
>one. It's congested if they say it's congested, and not if they
>say it's not. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average
>aviator to figure out which is which by reading and interpreting
>the regs....

Sure there is. Just screw up. You only need to do so once and you will
most likely find out whether it is or is not congested.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> if you know the answer.. why do you ask..

I didn't know the answer when I asked. I was given a reference in
reply, which I looked up. Now I know the answer.

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

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:43:58 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:39:28 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:
>
>>On 2 Jan 2007 14:57:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:
>>
>>>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> "Congested areas" have higher minimums.
>>>>Yes, but it doesn't say what makes a place a congested area.
>>>
>>>When you find out, tell us. The FAA seems happy to not
>>>define it and leave it to the pilot to prove it wasn't
>>>congested when they decide to say it is.
>>
>>Bingo. The feds hold their cards close to their chest on this
>>one. It's congested if they say it's congested, and not if they
>>say it's not. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average
>>aviator to figure out which is which by reading and interpreting
>>the regs....
>
>Sure there is. Just screw up. You only need to do so once and you will
>most likely find out whether it is or is not congested.
>
>>
>>Bela P. Havasreti
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

You've got a point there Roger. How about you go first? 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Doug Spencer]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:39:28 GMT
Bela P. Havasreti > wrote:

> Bingo. The feds hold their cards close to their chest on this
> one. It's congested if they say it's congested, and not if they
> say it's not. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average
> aviator to figure out which is which by reading and interpreting
> the regs....
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

How about it's congested if you couldn't make an emergency landing
without hitting a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure while flying
below the minimum required in a congested area? Seems like a reasonable,
pragmatic way to think about the subject and probably fairly close to
the intent.

Doug

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

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> in certain conditions/areas?

Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor dares.

Over populated areas it's 1,000'

All AGL.

--
Duncan

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Why didn't you try to look it up first?

[Blanche]

Deja vu all over again.

The entire 14 CFR (better known as "the FARs) are online and
contain the answer to this question.

Basic rule of education
you remember 10% of what you hear
you remember 80% of what you discover yourself

Go forth and discover by reading the FARs.

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

searchable, too!

[Michael Rhodes]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:28:30 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>BT writes:
>
>> if you would take a ground school course..
>> they would teach you the FARs
>
>If you don't know the answer, you can save your time and not mine by
>skipping the reply.

FYI, you little ...

If YOU don't know, and refuse to take the suggested courses, then you
can buy books and magazines and read them in YOUR spare time like I
did. Fortunately, I did not have a simulator I might pretend as real
to take their place, then think to rudely harass someone, or a bunch
of someones (how pompous!) on the internet for free instruction.

There are some excellent authors, both book and magazine, who are
quite public and not expensive. AND there are some excellent web
sites which also have good info and make an effort to not be so dry.
But written materials can be held in hand and pondered at your own
pace. The web is too brief, and cluttered; as is this news group, for
that matter.

We, including you, including me, have the right to avoid others. And
also to group with others in some protected confines to discuss
commonalities. By its nature, aviation of course! deserves more of a
quieted area than, say, college football at a bar.

The want for peace in their own neighborhood (the hell if it is yours)
forces some to treat you politely, when BY ALL RIGHTS, you should
taken out back and have your back-side treated appropriately.
You are a bad guy who hardly deserves a moment of anyone's time. You
have the nerve to demand all there time!

People don't mind an occasional quiz, so, in a news group, there will
always be someone who responds by reflex. But when that's the only
thing going on then, you little..., it suffers. The anger you read,
but not human enough to feel, is real, and appropriate.
--
Mike

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Rhodes writes:

> If YOU don't know, and refuse to take the suggested courses, then you
> can buy books and magazines and read them in YOUR spare time like I
> did.

Within the limits of my modest resources, I do.

> Fortunately, I did not have a simulator I might pretend as real
> to take their place, then think to rudely harass someone, or a bunch
> of someones (how pompous!) on the internet for free instruction.

Odd that anyone would see questions as harassment. The only time I
encounter that is when people don't know the answers to the questions,
and dread anyone else finding that out.

> There are some excellent authors, both book and magazine, who are
> quite public and not expensive. AND there are some excellent web
> sites which also have good info and make an effort to not be so dry.

I do research.

> But written materials can be held in hand and pondered at your own
> pace. The web is too brief, and cluttered; as is this news group, for
> that matter.

The Web, however, is free.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Why didn't you try to look it up first?

The FARs are rather large.

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

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Why didn't you try to look it up first?
>
> The FARs are rather large.
>

that's why there is an index

[Chris Wells]

I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground. :) No IFR ticket, either.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If you don't know the answer, you can save your time and not mine by
> skipping the reply.
>

If you would take the effort to find the answer yourself in the sources
given to you many times in this group, you can save your and our time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:08:40 +1300, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
>> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
>> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
>> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
>> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
>> in certain conditions/areas?
>
>Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
>level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor dares.
>
>Over populated areas it's 1,000'
>
>All AGL.

So the instructor who took me down to <100ft over 70? mile beach,
whilst on vacation was just having fun?!!!!!

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> above the ground in the U.S.?

The ground level.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris Wells writes:

> I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.

How can you be ten feet above the trees, but less than five feet above
the ground?

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Michael Rhodes writes:
>
>> If YOU don't know, and refuse to take the suggested courses, then you
>> can buy books and magazines and read them in YOUR spare time like I
>> did.
>
> Within the limits of my modest resources, I do.
>
No, you do not. The information that answers to your question conclusively
is available for free, and you have been pointed to it numerous times,
now. That you have not availed yourself of those resources exposes your
real purpose here.

Neil

[mad8]

golf clap

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> > above the ground in the U.S.?
>
> The ground level.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> The ground level.
>

Ground level is a regulation? <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[TThierry]

> In Canada it's the same, with the proviso attached "except
> when taking off or landing." It would be impossible to land or take off
> at most airports if we had to stay 500' away from any person,
> structure, vehicle or vessel.
> Low flying kills people.

Same thing in France. The minimum height above ground was raised from
150 to 500ft a few years ago because of deadly accidents.
But this minimum is not valid everywhere. Especially above cities where
a minimum height of 1600, 3200 or 5000ft is mandatory, depending on the
size of the city. (You find this information on the charts.)

Thierry,
PPL,
http://www.airpictures.net
http://flyinfrance.free.fr

[Jim Logajan]

Chris Wells > wrote:
> I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
>:) No IFR ticket, either.

You crazy ultralight flyers! ;-)

[Jim Logajan]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Ron,
>> The ground level.
>
> Ground level is a regulation? <gd&r>

It's a well-grounded law.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Chris Wells" > wrote in message
...
>
> I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
> :) No IFR ticket, either.
>
> --
> Chris Wells

How in the world were you able to get 10' above the trees and still remain
5' or less above the ground?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Allen

[[email protected]]

Chris Wells wrote:
> I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
> :) No IFR ticket, either.

Can I have your tools after you kill yourself?

Dan

[george]

Allen wrote:

> "Chris Wells" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> > visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
> > :) No IFR ticket, either.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Wells
>
> How in the world were you able to get 10' above the trees and still remain
> 5' or less above the ground?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!
>
Underground sawmills :-)

[george]

Duncan (NZ) wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> > above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> > the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> > 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> > actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> > regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> > in certain conditions/areas?
>
> Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
> level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor dares.
>
> Over populated areas it's 1,000'
>
> All AGL.

Yup.
Microlites are frowned upon flying over cities in NZ
You -can- go lower to keep the cloud seperation numbers the way CAA
like them AFAIR

[Chris Wells]

Chris Wells writes:

I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.

How can you be ten feet above the trees, but less than five feet above
the ground?

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


Well, in the same flights, not at the same time...

[Chris Wells]

Chris Wells wrote:
I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
:) No IFR ticket, either.

Can I have your tools after you kill yourself?

Dan

What, you mean while sharing the roads with American drivers? Because none of my flying is as dangerous as that...

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:08:40 +1300, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> >> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> >> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
> >> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> >> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> >> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
> >> in certain conditions/areas?
> >
> >Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
> >level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor dares.
> >
> >Over populated areas it's 1,000'
> >
> >All AGL.
>
> So the instructor who took me down to <100ft over 70? mile beach,
> whilst on vacation was just having fun?!!!!!

:) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)

--
Duncan

[Michael Rhodes]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 06:10:41 +0000, Chris Wells
> wrote:

>
>I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
>visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
>:) No IFR ticket, either.

You people are so damned queer.

[Michael Rhodes]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:25:47 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Michael Rhodes writes:
>
>> If YOU don't know, and refuse to take the suggested courses, then you
>> can buy books and magazines and read them in YOUR spare time like I
>> did.
>
>Within the limits of my modest resources, I do.

Oh your so modest. You must pat yourself on the back for it every
day.

But I suspect you may have burden you 'care' to 'share'. You really
(yes, REALLY!) should rid yourself of all those pet dogs eating at
your household budget. And the technique for doing that is putting
them 'to sleep'. 'Putting them away' is what we call it on the farm,
as we load the most convenient weapon. Send them this way and that is
what they'll get; not the pity of one with "modest resources", but the
conviction of one who knows what to do with what is obvious Trouble.
>
>> Fortunately, I did not have a simulator I might pretend as real
>> to take their place, then think to rudely harass someone, or a bunch
>> of someones (how pompous!) on the internet for free instruction.
>
>Odd that anyone would see questions as harassment. The only time I
>encounter that is when people don't know the answers to the questions,
>and dread anyone else finding that out.

A lame lie, lame insult.
>
>> There are some excellent authors, both book and magazine, who are
>> quite public and not expensive. AND there are some excellent web
>> sites which also have good info and make an effort to not be so dry.
>
>I do research.

Then apply it, if you're so capable.
>
>> But written materials can be held in hand and pondered at your own
>> pace. The web is too brief, and cluttered; as is this news group, for
>> that matter.
>
>The Web, however, is free.

Have you no shame? It is apparent that you do not, while working so
hard to pretend you do; thinking to get away with it by the pity of
'modest resources'. You, and the rest of your noisy group intent on
noise, are 'modestly' evil. You are not what you claim to be.

Are you gathering bunches of undigestable tidbits to send to Africa or
something? Such will NOT save mankind. No one ever said they would.

Something is VERY out of perspective!
--
Mike

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Why didn't you try to look it up first?
>
>The FARs are rather large.

And your point is?

Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover. Repeatedly.
And get tested on them on a recurring, regular basis. You want to
ask questions? Fine, but having access to the FARs - which you do --
and reading them -- which you refuse to do -- are the the ground rules
for being here.

Not only that, but those of us with current medicals, and follow
US FAA "rules" have our own printed copies. Why? Because one of
the rules is that we are required to have "all available information"
for each and every flight. Each and every one of us in the US
are fair game for a ramp check.

You want to play here following US FAA rules -- which you've repeatedly
stated you do -- fine. Then learn the rules. We did. Not only that,
but we struggled to learn the rules so that we could play the game.

Don't like the rules of the game? Go play another one, somewhere
else, with someone else. Stop wasting bandwidth.

[Blanche]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>> above the ground in the U.S.?
>
>The ground level.

I've been waiting for this one!

[Newps]

Blanche wrote:

>
> Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover. Repeatedly.


Sheesh, I'm way behind the average.




>
> Not only that, but those of us with current medicals, and follow
> US FAA "rules" have our own printed copies. Why? Because one of
> the rules is that we are required to have "all available information"
> for each and every flight. Each and every one of us in the US
> are fair game for a ramp check.


My guess is less than 10% of pilots have the FAR's with them at any
given time. You're pretty optimistic about your fellow pilots.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/03/07 19:48, Newps wrote:
>
> Blanche wrote:
>
>>
>> Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover. Repeatedly.
>
>
> Sheesh, I'm way behind the average.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Not only that, but those of us with current medicals, and follow
>> US FAA "rules" have our own printed copies. Why? Because one of
>> the rules is that we are required to have "all available information"
>> for each and every flight. Each and every one of us in the US
>> are fair game for a ramp check.
>
>
> My guess is less than 10% of pilots have the FAR's with them at any
> given time. You're pretty optimistic about your fellow pilots.
>
>

I've read them cover to cover more than a few times and carry them
with me when I fly. Both FAR and AIM.


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

[M[_1_]]

I've never heard the requirement of having a book of FAR/AIM for a ramp
check.

These days you can read the entire FAR/AIM online. I don't see the
need for a hard copy anymore.

As far as "all available information" goes, how many pilots have the
current VFR chart update Bulletins?


> > Not only that, but those of us with current medicals, and follow
> > US FAA "rules" have our own printed copies. Why? Because one of
> > the rules is that we are required to have "all available information"
> > for each and every flight. Each and every one of us in the US
> > are fair game for a ramp check.
>
>
> My guess is less than 10% of pilots have the FAR's with them at any
> given time. You're pretty optimistic about your fellow pilots.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:42:52 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> Ron,
>>> The ground level.
>>
>> Ground level is a regulation? <gd&r>
>
>It's a well-grounded law.

And *rigidly* enforced!

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

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Rhodes writes:

> A lame lie, lame insult.

Unfortunately, it is neither. People who wish to seem informed and
make the mistake of talking about things they don't really know that
well often become extremely defensive when they are called on their
ignorance, and they rapidly resort to personal attacks in an attempt
at self-defense that I suppose one could qualify as "lame."

> Then apply it, if you're so capable.

I do. But I often have questions that have not been answered by my
research.

I don't understand the rest of your post.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> And your point is?

That it can be difficult and/or time-consuming to find details in
them.

> Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover. Repeatedly.

Of course.

> Not only that, but those of us with current medicals, and follow
> US FAA "rules" have our own printed copies. Why? Because one of
> the rules is that we are required to have "all available information"
> for each and every flight. Each and every one of us in the US
> are fair game for a ramp check.

"All available information" is subject to interpretation. You don't
have the entire U.S. Code, and yet it is available information.

> You want to play here following US FAA rules -- which you've repeatedly
> stated you do -- fine.

The FARs don't cover USENET.

> Then learn the rules. We did. Not only that,
> but we struggled to learn the rules so that we could play the game.

In deep snowdrifts and barefooted, I presume?

> Don't like the rules of the game? Go play another one, somewhere
> else, with someone else. Stop wasting bandwidth.

If you don't like my posts, you need not read or reply to them.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Duncan writes:

> :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)

Would he still be in radar contact below 100 feet AGL?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> People who wish to seem informed and
> make the mistake of talking about things they don't really know that
> well often become extremely defensive when they are called on their
> ignorance, and they rapidly resort to personal attacks in an attempt
> at self-defense
>

You understand yourself better than I thought.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> Duncan writes:
>
> > :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)
>
> Would he still be in radar contact below 100 feet AGL?

I can see the "golf ball" transponder SSR thingie up on the port hills
from here - so, yep. Further, I've noted the transponder on the plane
doing it's thing too (being interagated) when on the RWY, so yep,
definately.

--
Duncan

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/03/07 22:09, M wrote:
> I've never heard the requirement of having a book of FAR/AIM for a ramp
> check.
>
> These days you can read the entire FAR/AIM online. I don't see the
> need for a hard copy anymore.
>
> As far as "all available information" goes, how many pilots have the
> current VFR chart update Bulletins?

Do you mean the one that come in the A/FD? I do ;-)

Each time the A/FD comes out, I read through that section as well as
others, and I keep it with me while I fly.


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

[Jose[_1_]]

> I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
> visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
> :) No IFR ticket, either.

Well, I fly all the time. Sometimes I use an airplane. And I'm always
in a fog.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Same thing in France. The minimum height above ground was raised from
> 150 to 500ft a few years ago because of deadly accidents.

Feet or meters?

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> How in the world were you able to get 10' above the trees and still remain
> 5' or less above the ground?

Actually there's a spot in Calfornia where the trees are grown ten or
twenty feet underground, so it's not so farfetched as it sounds.

Of course, that spot would have to be in California!

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

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Duncan writes:
>
>> :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)
>
> Would he still be in radar contact below 100 feet AGL?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If the transponder is on Standby, Primary return would still appear, but
information provided by the Mode C Transponder (altitude, squawk code, etc.)
would not. Primary return is just the radar signal bouncing off the
aircraft, the other information is "broadcast" by the transponder when it is
"interrogated"

[Allen[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> How in the world were you able to get 10' above the trees and still
>> remain 5' or less above the ground?
>
> Actually there's a spot in Calfornia where the trees are grown ten or
> twenty feet underground, so it's not so farfetched as it sounds.
>
> Of course, that spot would have to be in California!
>
> Jose

Cannabis trees don't count : > )

Allen

[Jim Macklin]

BTW, the answer to the subject line,
Absolute lowest altitude, is below sea level in Death Valley
and above 10,000 feet [3,000 meters] over the mountains.







"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
| On 01/03/07 22:09, M wrote:
| > I've never heard the requirement of having a book of
FAR/AIM for a ramp
| > check.
| >
| > These days you can read the entire FAR/AIM online. I
don't see the
| > need for a hard copy anymore.
| >
| > As far as "all available information" goes, how many
pilots have the
| > current VFR chart update Bulletins?
|
| Do you mean the one that come in the A/FD? I do ;-)
|
| Each time the A/FD comes out, I read through that section
as well as
| others, and I keep it with me while I fly.
|
|
| --
| Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
| Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
| Sacramento, CA

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> Absolute lowest altitude, is below sea level in Death Valley

True for North America. But the Dead Sea is lower:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001763.html

Dead Sea, Israel-Jordan, 1,349 ft. below sea level (–411 m)
Death Valley, Calif., 282 ft. below sea level (–86 m)

I'm not sure what aircraft was first to fly into the Dead Sea area to take
honors for the first lowest flight ever, but I know the Graf Zeppelin did
it in 1929, going to about 1000 feet below sea level. It didn't even need a
snorkel! :-)

[Jim Macklin]

But in Death Valley the neighbors don't shoot you down.



"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
| > Absolute lowest altitude, is below sea level in Death
Valley
|
| True for North America. But the Dead Sea is lower:
|
| http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001763.html
|
| Dead Sea, Israel-Jordan, 1,349 ft. below sea level (-411
m)
| Death Valley, Calif., 282 ft. below sea level (-86 m)
|
| I'm not sure what aircraft was first to fly into the Dead
Sea area to take
| honors for the first lowest flight ever, but I know the
Graf Zeppelin did
| it in 1929, going to about 1000 feet below sea level. It
didn't even need a
| snorkel! :-)

[A Lieberma]

Blanche > wrote in
:

> Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover.
> Repeatedly. And get tested on them on a recurring, regular basis. You
> want to ask questions? Fine, but having access to the FARs - which you
> do -- and reading them -- which you refuse to do -- are the the ground
> rules for being here.

Unfortunately, as long as some keep feeding this troll, he won't have a
need to read the FAR's, AIMS or any other reference that's been provided to
him.

> Don't like the rules of the game? Go play another one, somewhere
> else, with someone else. Stop wasting bandwidth.

Manowar, do I agree with this, but some folks really disagree with me when
I say they are wasting their time with this dude. But of course, I am
being told that I am destroying my "reputation" (whatever that reputation
that I so care little about) trying to bring some sanity back to this
group.

Blanche, been singing your tune for about 3 months now..... Only way to
get rid of him is to not answer his questions.

Allen

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:05:30 -0600, Doug Spencer
> wrote:

>How about it's congested if you couldn't make an emergency landing
>without hitting a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure while flying
>below the minimum required in a congested area? Seems like a reasonable,
>pragmatic way to think about the subject and probably fairly close to
>the intent.

That's about half of it... but at least as far as ultralights (powered
paragliders in this case) are concerned, the FAA interpreted a busy 4
lane highway with clear fields on each side a "congested area"
(ultralights have NO minimum altitude, but can't fly over a "congested
area" at ANY altitude). I see the interpretation as not only "can you
land safely", but also "if anything falls off the machine will it be
likely to injure anybody on the ground?"

Somebody else mentioned the yellow areas on charts. They represent
the lighted portion of cities at night, not specifically congested
areas (though most of those areas would doubtless be considered
"congested").

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:58:07 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>I'm not sure what aircraft was first to fly into the Dead Sea area to take
>honors for the first lowest flight ever, but I know the Graf Zeppelin did
>it in 1929, going to about 1000 feet below sea level. It didn't even need a
>snorkel! :-)

There was a guy who flew a hot air balloon in a large, deep cave,
could be even deeper... I forget the details though.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 06:10:41 +0000, Chris Wells
> wrote:

>
>I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
>visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
>:) No IFR ticket, either.

Ain't ultralights great? :)

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey

[Alan Gerber]

In rec.aviation.student Dana M. Hague
<d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> That's about half of it... but at least as far as ultralights (powered
> paragliders in this case) are concerned, the FAA interpreted a busy 4
> lane highway with clear fields on each side a "congested area"
> (ultralights have NO minimum altitude, but can't fly over a "congested
> area" at ANY altitude).

Are you even allowed to *cross* the highway? If not, that could put a
serious crimp in your travel plans, depending on where you're flying.

> I see the interpretation as not only "can you
> land safely", but also "if anything falls off the machine will it be
> likely to injure anybody on the ground?"

Not to mention if the machine iself falls from the sky.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Lee K. Gleason]

"Duncan (NZ)" > wrote in message
. nz...
> In article >,
> says...
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:08:40 +1300, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > says...
> > >> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
> > >> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
> > >> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up
to
> > >> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
> > >> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
> > >> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general
or
> > >> in certain conditions/areas?
> > >
> > >Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
> > >level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor
dares.
> > >
> > >Over populated areas it's 1,000'
> > >
> > >All AGL.
> >
> > So the instructor who took me down to <100ft over 70? mile beach,
> > whilst on vacation was just having fun?!!!!!
>
> :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)
>
My instructor told me I should be careful and never fly low enough to let
anyone read the tail number of the plane...
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants

[Michael Rhodes]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:59:28 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>
>Blanche, been singing your tune for about 3 months now..... Only way to
>get rid of him is to not answer his questions.
>
>Allen

Briefly...

Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated?

(The long version...)

It is surprising that headers appearing least deserving of attention
will load with so many replies. Maybe we collect our share of bowel
restrants during the day, then look to release them in some convenient
out-house; which is our own. (Or yours, as the case may be. I am not
a pilot, yet.)

The option to keep the toilet lid closed is available to those having
more useful gifts to, and expectations from, their neighbors. But
there's a noisy party next door, in another header; where errors and
other personal matters may be thought easily forgotten, and those of
others cussed out angrily. That flatulent noise cannot be completely
avoided throughout. The distraction is substantial.

Rec.aviation.student/piloting are news groups intended for a
disciplined environment. (So are others in the usenet; or were.)
Pilots enter therein without complaint, and with relief, since
discipline actually does allow for entertainment, (and something even
a little deeper). And their mixing in appropriate measures, with the
effort to make that discernment, can be a filling experience.

Then there are the party 'raiders'. (Couldn't recall the usual word,
and the dictionary didn't help; except for 'party poopers'.) Their
want (for all we can figure), is to destroy an ordered pleasure, its
success. Why? Envy of 'big-shots' (who occasionally are immature
themselves), or to put people in their place, because no one should,
in their fantasy, be better than ony one else -- for reasons of theft,
or just plain destruction, or just plain ego.

It is their power-play where they can win in unprotected places, where
complaints are futile and dissed as whining. Then it is an
unfortunate union, by rape, in pain. By a few acting as if on behalf
of the whole, their half of the whole; as if owed brotherhood, or a
command status. All in the name of 'freedom'.

No civilized effort towards some goal, as glory, can exist without
protection at some level (as opposed to unguarded 'freedom').
Otherwise, eventually it will be defiled; destroyed.

Because of the state of the usenet, and the universal curiosity about
aviation, I can't see how useful discussions can be had without
locking out disturbances. So, does anyone have time to moderate these
groups? Or would that make them too restrained? How about lightly
moderated, where specific abusers could be blocked & posts deleted. Or
is that somehow asking for trouble? A forum on the internet, anyone?
It isn't my business to suggest it, but will anyway.

Some regulars prefer tighter control than others. And the disagreement
itself becomes a distraction. There are always distractions, but
what's going on now is ridiculous.
--
Mike

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Michael Rhodes > posted:
>
> Some regulars prefer tighter control than others. And the disagreement
> itself becomes a distraction. There are always distractions, but
> what's going on now is ridiculous.
>
Not to worry, this, too, will pass.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> He said feet. Meters are not used in European aviation any more, except
> in former Soviet Union countries and partially in gliders.

Yes, I know he said feet; the numbers were so low I thought that might
have been an error. That meters aren't used any more is a surprise to
me - the world is regressing.

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

[swag]

Depends on the area. Most areas no, but if the radar facility was
nearby, yes
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Duncan writes:
>
> > :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)
>
> Would he still be in radar contact below 100 feet AGL?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> He said feet. Meters are not used in European aviation any more, except
> in former Soviet Union countries and partially in gliders.

I suspect the French are still using metres for something. They
always have to do something different (not necessarily better).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jose writes:

> That meters aren't used any more is a surprise to
> me - the world is regressing.

Aviation is one of many examples of domains that are sufficiently
insulated from the world at large that they can easily use their own
units of measure without causing too much problem. Add that to the
enormous potential cost and risk of changing measurement units
worldwide, and it's easy to see why feet and knots have been retained.

Feet and knots are largely dimensionless in aviation. You don't
really have to know how long a foot is, or how fast a knot is. You
just have to plug the numbers in correctly when flying.

There is one universal domain in which old units are retained: time.
Since all present time is linked to all past time, it rapidly proved
impractical to decimalize time, and so the world still works with
hours, minutes, and seconds.

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

[mad8]

the swimming pool from cheech and chong's "nice dreams"?


Jose wrote:
> > How in the world were you able to get 10' above the trees and still remain
> > 5' or less above the ground?
>
> Actually there's a spot in Calfornia where the trees are grown ten or
> twenty feet underground, so it's not so farfetched as it sounds.
>
> Of course, that spot would have to be in California!
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Lieberma]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:astnh.28843$hI.14462
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

> Recently, Michael Rhodes > posted:
>>
>> Some regulars prefer tighter control than others. And the disagreement
>> itself becomes a distraction. There are always distractions, but
>> what's going on now is ridiculous.
>>
> Not to worry, this, too, will pass.

Only when folks stop responding to the troll, which isn't soon enough.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Actually there's a spot in Calfornia where the trees are grown ten or
>> twenty feet underground, so it's not so farfetched as it sounds
> the swimming pool from cheech and chong's "nice dreams"?

The place is called the Forestiere Underground Gardens and it's in Fresno.

http://www.forestiere-historicalcenter.com/

It's a flying destination the next time I'm in the area and it's open.

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

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Feet and knots are largely dimensionless in aviation. You don't
> really have to know how long a foot is, or how fast a knot is. You
> just have to plug the numbers in correctly when flying.

Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
one minute of latitude at the equator. Anyone using lat/long and some
spherical trig (like the old guys who crossed oceans used sextants to
determine their position) will make use of these things. The lazy ones
among us (or like me, the ones really poor at math) will use GPS, which
does the same thing.


Dan

[Michael[_1_]]

Michael Rhodes wrote:
> Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated?

Yes. It's so people (like you) can post off-topic rants (like this
one) about people they don't like rather than discussing aviation
topics.

I suggest you read the charter for r.a.s and r.a.p. You might discover
some interesting things. In brief, you would discover that the posts
by Mxsmanic are generally within the scope of the charter (certainly
all the ones I have seen from him starting new threads have been) and
that most of the responses are not.

Moderation exists not to protect groups from occasional individual
trolls but to keep them from being overwhelmed by volume from spammers
(many of the sex groups have had to do this) and flamers (many of the
groups discussing politically charged issues like abortion and firearms
have had to do this). The closest thing we ever really had to a troll
like that was Skylune, and he was one man. Not worth stifling the
discussion for one man.

Mxsmanic is not a troll. He asks relevant questions. When he gets an
answer that doesn't make sense to him (more often than not because it
is, at least in my opinion as a pilot/instuctor/mechanic/aircraft
owner, not a very correct or clear answer) he argues with it. When
people are abusive to him, he is abusive in return - but giving just a
little less than he gets. I've seen him post stuff that was out of
scope for the charter, but only in reply to posts that were
signifciantly more out of scope.

Moderation would not stop his threads. It would make them more
readable - by stopping most of the comments that are nasty rather than
responsive. It's almost enough to make me think this is a good idea.

Michael

[A Lieberma]

"Michael" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Mxsmanic is not a troll.

ONLY IN YOUR OPINION WHICH IS CLEARLY THE MINORITY.

Allen

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 09:52:24 -0800, Mark Hansen wrote
(in article >):

> On 01/02/07 09:46, Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>>> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
>>> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up to
>>> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
>>> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
>>> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general or
>>> in certain conditions/areas?
>>
>> There was a video of a Yak that was making sparks on the runway. I
>> would say that's just about as low as you can go.
>>
>
> Well, I guess you can go lower if you don't mind making your own hole ;-\
>
>
>

You have to get permission from the Bureau of Mines.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote : Mxsmanic is not a troll.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"A Lieberma" > wrote: ONLY IN YOUR OPINION WHICH IS CLEARLY THE MINORITY.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Allen, just kick Michael, and anyone else who so strongly sides with Mx,
right into the kill file with MX. They deserve each other.

At any rate, you won't have your time killed reading their garbage, or time
killed skipping over it. They simply dissappear. That is a "good thing,"
in my book.

Also, delete any cross posting; post only to the piloting group. I think a
lot of kooks are coming over here from the sim group.

Hang in there everyone; perhaps the tide is turning.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter R.]

On 1/5/2007 10:40:30 PM, "Morgans" wrote:

>Also, delete any cross posting; post only to the piloting group. I think a
>lot of kooks are coming over here from the sim group.

Careful there, Jim. It's one thing to fight the good fight against this one
individual. However, it's a completely different and somewhat classless act
to label those from the sim group as "kooks."

I have interacted with many in both groups and I can say with certainty that
those in the sim group are a very friendly, smart, and respectful bunch. In
fact, you obviously are not aware that many of those in the sim group have
been regulars in this group for years, if you can believe it.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
> mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
> one minute of latitude at the equator.

Yes, but that is largely incidental today, particularly for east-west
movements away from the equator. Anyone using that relationship for
dead reckoning, for example, can get into trouble if he's not very
careful.

> Anyone using lat/long and some spherical trig (like the old guys
> who crossed oceans used sextants to determine their position) will
> make use of these things.

I don't think too many pilots use sextants today. I think an
increasing number of pilots don't know how to do anything except look
at a moving map display, or set an autopilot.

> The lazy ones
> among us (or like me, the ones really poor at math) will use GPS, which
> does the same thing.

Yes. But what you don't use, you lose. And I don't think pilots are
taught how to use sextants, anyway. Although I've heard that early
airline navigators and pilots used them--which is why some older
aircraft have little windows above the pilots, for shooting the stars.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

The quickest and easiest answer is:

You learn to ignore it or go insane.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:33:00 -0600, "Lee K. Gleason"
> wrote:

>
>"Duncan (NZ)" > wrote in message
. nz...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:08:40 +1300, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:
>> >
>> > >In article >,
>> > says...
>> > >> What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
>> > >> above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
>> > >> the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up
>to
>> > >> 700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
>> > >> actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
>> > >> regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general
>or
>> > >> in certain conditions/areas?
>> > >
>> > >Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
>> > >level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor
>dares.
>> > >
>> > >Over populated areas it's 1,000'
>> > >
>> > >All AGL.
>> >
>> > So the instructor who took me down to <100ft over 70? mile beach,
>> > whilst on vacation was just having fun?!!!!!
>>
>> :) - did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby? :)
>>
> My instructor told me I should be careful and never fly low enough to let
>anyone read the tail number of the plane...

When thy are this size (check logging trail or corn field)
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm
ground reference maneuvers would be difficult. <:-))
But in that light, a few years back we had some neighbors to the south
(the typical new subdivision with expensive homes that thought the
airport was too noisy and should be closed so they could sleep
better/later)

At any rate I'd not had the Deb for more than a couple of months. It
had a 2-blade prop. If you've ever heard a Bonanza with a 2-blade prop
take off you know they are loud. If you've not hear one...The prop
tips go supersonic at take off RPM and they are LOUD.

It was a hot day with a gusty wind pretty much out of the south so we
all had to use the short runway which meant I could count the boards
in their picnic tables. I have no doubt that the dishes rattled in
their cupboards and they had to stop talking as a number of us went
over. Of course if they hadn't made such a stink about lenthening
18/36 it would have been 4000 feet and most of us would have been at
pattern altitude over their homes instead of a couple hundred feet.

As I said, the airport was busy and most were either high performance
singles or twins. I only made three trips that day. None were
circuits, or pattern work. However the one irate home owner wrote
down my N# and complained. The airport manager said "this guy says
you went over his house every five minutes all afternoon and he knows
it was you because he wrote down the N number. I explained I'd made
three trips and even doing circuits I'd not be able to do one every
five minutes.

In a way it was good he blamed me with the impossible because the
complaint was filed with the notation, Not possible. Every plane
sounded the same to him and he saw my N# so I got credit for all. Had
he been a bit more observant and accurate they might have listened to
him about the noise, but at that point the city saw him more as a
troublemaker.

BTW I now have a 3-blad prop on the Deb.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
> mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
> one minute of latitude at the equator.

Of course. And how often do you fly along the equator?

BTW, meters were defined the same: 10'000km equal one quarter of the
equator. Along with this definition came a system of decimal degrees,
one full cycle equal 400deg (i.e. one quarter of a cycle 100deg, which
corresponded to the meter definition). While the metric system was a
success, the decimal degrees system never made it, for better or for
worse. (Personally, I think for better. Basic calculations would be much
easier if evolution had created man with 6 fingers on each hand.)

Stefan

[Stefan]

Stefan schrieb:

> BTW, meters were defined the same: 10'000km equal one quarter of the
> equator.

Correction. Definition was the distance from the pole to the equator.
The result is about the same.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> No they do not.

Yes, they do. Read the regulations (Réglementation de la Circulation
Aérienne).

> It's not a big issue in
> practice, but statments like the above are tinted by national prejudice
> and should not be tolerated.

I know, in Germany everything is prohibited, except that which is
allowed. And intolerance cannot be tolerated, unless its intolerance
to intolerance, which is tolerated. Or put more simply, whoever is in
charge censors whoever isn't.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> You mean you don't know.

No, I do know. I read the regulations. You apparently did not.

> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C3%A9_en_aviation
> (For those non-fluent in French: It says that pilots use feet, nautical
> miles, inHg, ft/min and knots)

Wikipedia isn't the document that contains the regulations. See

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/asp/texteregle/texteregle-c.asp?ordre_0=4&ordre_1=2&lang=fr

> When criticised for bigotry, you answer with more bigotry.

No, I just find it amusing to point out that the people who complain
the most about "bigotry" are often its most devoted practitioners.

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

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> Wikipedia isn't the document that contains the regulations. See
>
> http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/asp/texteregle/texte

And what exactly in this reglementation is not ICAO conform?

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> And what exactly in this reglementation is not ICAO conform?

I don't know; that wasn't the question. The question was whether or
not the French still use metres in aviation, and they obviously do,
because it's right in the regulations.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I know, in Germany everything is prohibited, except that which is
> allowed.
>

More areas of life you have no clue about but still show arrogance
toward. Sad.

Very interesting how you resort to personal attacks more and more.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
> > mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
> > one minute of latitude at the equator.
>
> Yes, but that is largely incidental today, particularly for east-west
> movements away from the equator. Anyone using that relationship for
> dead reckoning, for example, can get into trouble if he's not very
> careful.
>
No, it's not incidental today. Back in my dead-reckoning days in the
Air Force we used Lambert Comformal charts, which uses a conical
projection. Using 1nm for dead-reckoning going east-west (across
longitude) was plenty accurate, until you got into the extreme northern
latitudes (which is where grid navigation came into play). But even
there, distance across longitude isn't necessarily the problem; heading
is.

And, look at a U.S. sectional chart. It uses Lambert Conformal conic
projection, and using 1nm for dead reckoning east-west (longitude) is
plenty accurate. You won't get into trouble.

Now, let's say you plan a flight across the U.S. from New York City to
Los Angeles. You'll be using (guessing here) maybe seven or eight
different sectional charts. Each has a different conical projection
point. So, even if, on the chart, you are plotting your route in a
"straight" line, you are really approximating a Great Circle route, and
your no-wind heading (true or magnetic, makes no difference) will be up
to several degrees different when you arrive in Los Angeles (compared
to your departure heading in New York). Obviously, I'm ignoring
magnetic variation here.

This is REALLY apparent when flying from, say, San Francisco to Tokyo.

But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the
way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a
worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a
degree or so from one waypoint to another.

This applies to ONC and JNC charts too, and it worked fine for our
overwater navigation in KC-135's.

So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all. Of course, if
you use a GPS or FMS as your primary navigation source it is, since the
map projections are taken care of by the computer in your box.

> > Anyone using lat/long and some spherical trig (like the old guys
> > who crossed oceans used sextants to determine their position) will
> > make use of these things.
>
> I don't think too many pilots use sextants today. I think an
> increasing number of pilots don't know how to do anything except look
> at a moving map display, or set an autopilot.
>
> > The lazy ones
> > among us (or like me, the ones really poor at math) will use GPS, which
> > does the same thing.
>
> Yes. But what you don't use, you lose. And I don't think pilots are
> taught how to use sextants, anyway. Although I've heard that early
> airline navigators and pilots used them--which is why some older
> aircraft have little windows above the pilots, for shooting the stars.

<sigh>
35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a
minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an
Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it
was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries.
:>)

ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know
what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints.
Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty
accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction
you're going.

Now, flying an ARA into Thule, Greenland is a whole different animal.
:>)

--Walt (who is probably showing his age)

[Walt]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> It's really the Americans who do something different, and used their
> power to force their ways on the rest of the world. Surely metric is
> preferrable all other things being equal. It's not a big issue in
> practice, but statments like the above are tinted by national prejudice
> and should not be tolerated.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> __o
> http://www.wschwanke.de/ _'\<,_ C'est le tour de
> France!
> (_)/ (_)

Hey, c'mon, that foot-and-pound system was forced on us by the British.
It's all their fault!

IIRC, there was a big push in the '70's or '80's in the U.S. to start
moving to the metric system, since it really is more logical. But,
there was a big push back from the general American public who liked
their feet and had no desire to transform them into meters. :>)

As was mentioned previously by That Poster We Will Not Name, the unit
of measurement in aviation doesn't really matter all that much. FL350
could be 35,000 feet or meters, but as long as everyone uses the same
unit of measurement it doesn't really make any difference.

Now, when I flew a gunship (AC119K) in SE Asia, we used klicks and
meters as our unit of measurement (for firing solutions at least). I
guess I could use this as evidence of an insidious attempt by
Europeans, backed by the U.N., to force a unit of measurement on the
American people they don't really want. A guerrilla war type of thing.

But, I won't, because it's stupid.

To wrap this up, I'll just say one thing: a football field should
ALWAYS be 100 YARDS long.

Comments?

:>)

--Walt (with tongue firmly in cheek)

[Stefan]

Walt schrieb:

> Hey, c'mon, that foot-and-pound system was forced on us by the British.
> It's all their fault!

Yeah, but at least, they have reasonable gallons.

> IIRC, there was a big push in the '70's or '80's in the U.S. to start
> moving to the metric system, since it really is more logical. But,
> there was a big push back from the general American public who liked
> their feet and had no desire to transform them into meters. :>)

The irony is that the metric system was forced some 200 years ago to the
unwilling European public by argument of sheer force.

Stefan

[Walt]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Walt > posted:
> >
> > To wrap this up, I'll just say one thing: a football field should
> > ALWAYS be 100 YARDS long.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> I guess that depends on what you mean by "football field". |-0
>
> Neil

My point exactly. :>)

--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the
> way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a
> worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a
> degree or so from one waypoint to another.

This is an interesting point. I do see the heading towards a waypoint
change slowly over time, and I've naturally assumed that it was just
the wind. However, if the distance between waypoints is quite long, I
can see that the actual track to follow could change over time due to
the great-circle character of the track between the waypoints.
Unfortunately, I don't remember offhand how long the distance would
have to be before it would change by a degree or more at intermediate
latitudes.

Of course, if the waypoints were on the Equator or exactly
north-south, there would be no change in heading.

> So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all.

Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that
hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one
increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more
and more iffy, too.

> 35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a
> minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an
> Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it
> was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries.
> :>)

I'm sure most other pilots have the same problem--if they ever knew
how to do this in the first place, that is.

> ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know
> what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints.
> Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty
> accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction
> you're going.

Not very practical for me these days.

> --Walt (who is probably showing his age)

When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
the military's aircraft inventory.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Now, when I flew a gunship (AC119K) in SE Asia, we used klicks and
> meters as our unit of measurement (for firing solutions at least).

What is a klick?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> What is a klick?
>

One kilometer. 1000 meters. One of those ridiculous French things...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Walt > posted:
>
> To wrap this up, I'll just say one thing: a football field should
> ALWAYS be 100 YARDS long.
>
> Comments?
>
I guess that depends on what you mean by "football field". |-0

Neil

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the
> > way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a
> > worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a
> > degree or so from one waypoint to another.
>
> This is an interesting point. I do see the heading towards a waypoint
> change slowly over time, and I've naturally assumed that it was just
> the wind. However, if the distance between waypoints is quite long, I
> can see that the actual track to follow could change over time due to
> the great-circle character of the track between the waypoints.
> Unfortunately, I don't remember offhand how long the distance would
> have to be before it would change by a degree or more at intermediate
> latitudes.
>
That's the whole reason for waypoints. We live on a sphere but
dead-reckon on a flat surface.
>
> > So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all.
>
> Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that
> hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one
> increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more
> and more iffy, too.

Your original statement was about dead reckoning. That was what I was
responding to.
>
> > 35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a
> > minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an
> > Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it
> > was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries.
> > :>)
>
> I'm sure most other pilots have the same problem--if they ever knew
> how to do this in the first place, that is.

Just a teary-eyed remembrance from an old fart. I didn't expect much of
a response.

>
> > ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know
> > what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints.
> > Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty
> > accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction
> > you're going.
>
> Not very practical for me these days.

That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.
>
> > --Walt (who is probably showing his age)
>
> When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
> aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
> the military's aircraft inventory.
>

Nice putdown.

I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
ignore them. Up to you.

--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
> reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
> interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.

I did read it, but it talked too much about politics and other
matters, and not enough about technical stuff.

> Nice putdown.

How so? I was alluding to the fact that some things in aviation have
not changed.

> I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
> ignore them. Up to you.

At the moment I don't have time to investigate them, but I'll keep
them under consideration.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
> > reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
> > interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.
>
> I did read it, but it talked too much about politics and other
> matters, and not enough about technical stuff.

Ignore the political aspects of the book, although they're pretty
interesting in their own right. Just take the way they tried to figure
out a longitude fix 300 years ago and look at how it's done now.
>
> > Nice putdown.
>
> How so? I was alluding to the fact that some things in aviation have
> not changed.

The current B-52 is what, the H model? It's changed. The current Walt
model is still the A model, although there have been a number of dot
releases over the years.

>
> > I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
> > ignore them. Up to you.
>
> At the moment I don't have time to investigate them, but I'll keep
> them under consideration.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Do it when you have the time.

--Walt

[Kev]

Walt wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
> > aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
> > the military's aircraft inventory.
> >
> Nice putdown.

What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were
commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you
were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless.

Regards,
Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Ignore the political aspects of the book, although they're pretty
> interesting in their own right. Just take the way they tried to figure
> out a longitude fix 300 years ago and look at how it's done now.

In those days, mariners had to be very brave, or slightly stupid.

> The current B-52 is what, the H model? It's changed.

Yeah, but it was supposed to be gone, replaced by fancier stuff. Now
the AF is talking about keeping it for another 40 years. It's a good
aircraft.

Who would have thought, more than four decades ago, that he could tell
his grandson "Someday you'll fly this plane, too"?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were
> commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you
> were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless.

Exactly. Other aircraft have come and gone, but some aircraft, such
as the B-52, have outlived them all, and still serve just as they did
when they were "young."

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

[Walt]

Kev wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
> > > aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
> > > the military's aircraft inventory.
> > >
> > Nice putdown.
>
> What putdown? I read that statement as a compliment. You were
> commenting about growing old, and he was inferring that the things you
> were involved with years ago, haven't grown old and useless.
>
> Regards,
> Kev

Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the
inventory and you're not."

Which is, of course, true.

But it still hurt.

<sob>

--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the
> inventory and you're not."

Nope, that's almost the opposite of what I intended.

> But it still hurt.

The least complimentary interpretation is not neccesarily the right
interpretation.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the
> > inventory and you're not."
>
> Nope, that's almost the opposite of what I intended.
>
> > But it still hurt.
>
> The least complimentary interpretation is not neccesarily the right
> interpretation.
>
> --

And from you, I will take that as a compliment. Thanks.

--Walt

[Watson]

Gentlemen and Ladies:

Sorry, but if I read these correctly . .

Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
> > mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
> > one minute of latitude at the equator.

Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that
> hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one
> increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more
> and more iffy, too.

It appears to me (unless I misunderstand the posts cited above) that there
may be a misunderstanding of latitude and longitude's relationship to
Nautical Miles.

If I recall correctly, 1 min of latitude = 1 NM everywhere (not just the
equator), aren't lines of latitude also called parallels and thus maintain
there equidistant relationship all the way to the poles? And don't lines of
longitude meet at the poles and therefore their angles maintian the same
angular relationship yet the distances decrease the further one travels from
the equator?

Regards,

Watson

[Mxsmanic]

Watson writes:

> If I recall correctly, 1 min of latitude = 1 NM everywhere (not just the
> equator), aren't lines of latitude also called parallels and thus maintain
> there equidistant relationship all the way to the poles?

The size of one minute of longitude contracts along each of the
latitude parallels as they get closer to the poles. At the equator,
one minute is one nautical mile (roughly); at the poles, one minute is
zero distance. At U.S. latitudes, one minute of longitude is
considerably smaller than a nautical mile--you can see this if you
look at sectionals.

> And don't lines of longitude meet at the poles and therefore their angles
> maintian the same
> angular relationship yet the distances decrease the further one travels from
> the equator?

Right--so one minute in an east-west direction gets smaller and
smaller as you move towards the poles. It's only one nautical mile at
the equator.

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

[Michael Rhodes]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:22:42 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>The quickest and easiest answer is:
>
>You learn to ignore it or go insane.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

That bad, huh? I'll retract my question/suggestion. It was intended
as a question. Seemed logical.

It is better for some to ignore it, but it won't always be ignored,
nor should it. Moderation organizes the effort into some sort of
authority. Independent (if not libertarian), aviators reflexively
kick back at any authoritarian figure, who tend to 'prove' themselves
by taking more authority.

But if I'm going to spend so much time and money in the air, then you
can be sure I want ordered skies, and to be with those accustomed to
discipline, and not 'free flight'. And think its better to argue with
authority than the uncivilized; though neither argue well. But it's
better to take chances with the former than the latter -- unless the
former is the one organizing the current disturbance. It's
stubbornness suggests as much.
--
Mike

[BT]

>
> Knots are not dimensionless in aviation. A knot is one nautical
> mile per hour, and that nautical mile is the distance corresponding to
> one minute of latitude at the equator. Anyone using lat/long and some
> spherical trig (like the old guys who crossed oceans used sextants to
> determine their position) will make use of these things. The lazy ones
> among us (or like me, the ones really poor at math) will use GPS, which
> does the same thing.
>
>
> Dan
>

One minute of Latitude is 1nm, whether at the equator or just shy of the
pole.. it does not change

As for sextants.. I must be an old guy then.. as I have crossed the oceans
of air, relying on the celestial realm, my trusty sextant, a good watch and
lots of math.

BT

[BT]

Walt.. you are singing my tune..

I remember Grid Celestial Navigation and those trusty HO249s..
Been a long time since I've looked at an Air Almanac

BT

"Walt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Walt writes:
>>
>> > But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the
>> > way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a
>> > worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a
>> > degree or so from one waypoint to another.
>>
>> This is an interesting point. I do see the heading towards a waypoint
>> change slowly over time, and I've naturally assumed that it was just
>> the wind. However, if the distance between waypoints is quite long, I
>> can see that the actual track to follow could change over time due to
>> the great-circle character of the track between the waypoints.
>> Unfortunately, I don't remember offhand how long the distance would
>> have to be before it would change by a degree or more at intermediate
>> latitudes.
>>
> That's the whole reason for waypoints. We live on a sphere but
> dead-reckon on a flat surface.
>>
>> > So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all.
>>
>> Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that
>> hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one
>> increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more
>> and more iffy, too.
>
> Your original statement was about dead reckoning. That was what I was
> responding to.
>>
>> > 35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a
>> > minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an
>> > Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it
>> > was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries.
>> > :>)
>>
>> I'm sure most other pilots have the same problem--if they ever knew
>> how to do this in the first place, that is.
>
> Just a teary-eyed remembrance from an old fart. I didn't expect much of
> a response.
>
>>
>> > ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know
>> > what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints.
>> > Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty
>> > accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction
>> > you're going.
>>
>> Not very practical for me these days.
>
> That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
> reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
> interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.
>>
>> > --Walt (who is probably showing his age)
>>
>> When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
>> aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
>> the military's aircraft inventory.
>>
>
> Nice putdown.
>
> I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
> ignore them. Up to you.
>
> --Walt
>

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> As for sextants.. I must be an old guy then.. as I have crossed the oceans
> of air, relying on the celestial realm, my trusty sextant, a good watch and
> lots of math.

Have you ever flung your eager craft through footless halls of air?

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

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
>
>>That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
>>reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
>>interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.
>
>
> I did read it, but it talked too much about politics and other
> matters, and not enough about technical stuff.
>
>
>>Nice putdown.
>
>
> How so? I was alluding to the fact that some things in aviation have
> not changed.
>
>
>>I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
>>ignore them. Up to you.
>
>
> At the moment I don't have time to investigate them, but I'll keep
> them under consideration.
>
But you do have time to make aleph null cross posts to USENET. How
convenient.

[Walt]

Cool! I'm glad I'm not the only one left. :>)

Nowadays my relationship with stars centers around my 12" Dob, but
every evening I still look up at the sky and think, "okay, which three
stars will give me the best fix".

Three LOP's are your friends. :>)

I've been thinking about buying a bubble sextant out of eBay or
somewhere. It would be fun some evening to take a sun shot, get a speed
line, and find out I actually live in South Dakota instead of SW
Montana.

:>)

--Walt

BT wrote:
> Walt.. you are singing my tune..
>
> I remember Grid Celestial Navigation and those trusty HO249s..
> Been a long time since I've looked at an Air Almanac
>
> BT
>
> "Walt" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Walt writes:
> >>
> >> > But, this is not a big deal, since you'll be using waypoints along the
> >> > way, and the heading between waypoints won't change enough to be a
> >> > worry. But, you'll probably notice that your true heading changes by a
> >> > degree or so from one waypoint to another.
> >>
> >> This is an interesting point. I do see the heading towards a waypoint
> >> change slowly over time, and I've naturally assumed that it was just
> >> the wind. However, if the distance between waypoints is quite long, I
> >> can see that the actual track to follow could change over time due to
> >> the great-circle character of the track between the waypoints.
> >> Unfortunately, I don't remember offhand how long the distance would
> >> have to be before it would change by a degree or more at intermediate
> >> latitudes.
> >>
> > That's the whole reason for waypoints. We live on a sphere but
> > dead-reckon on a flat surface.
> >>
> >> > So, for dead reckoning today it's not incidental at all.
> >>
> >> Yes, _if_ someone is navigating by dead reckoning. My point was that
> >> hardly anyone uses dead reckoning by hand these days. And as one
> >> increases in latitude, the 1 degree = 1 minute relationship gets more
> >> and more iffy, too.
> >
> > Your original statement was about dead reckoning. That was what I was
> > responding to.
> >>
> >> > 35 years ago I could whip up a comp for a celestial shot in less than a
> >> > minute. Today it would probably take me a week. Of course, we used an
> >> > Air Almanac and an H.O. 249 to take care of the pesky trig stuff, so it
> >> > was mainly adding and subtracting stuff involving the GHA of Aries.
> >> > :>)
> >>
> >> I'm sure most other pilots have the same problem--if they ever knew
> >> how to do this in the first place, that is.
> >
> > Just a teary-eyed remembrance from an old fart. I didn't expect much of
> > a response.
> >
> >>
> >> > ANYWAY, if you're serious about plotting your course on a chart, know
> >> > what map projection you're using and the distance between waypoints.
> >> > Using a conical projection chart and a standard plotter will be plenty
> >> > accurate for any kind of dead-reckoning, no matter which direction
> >> > you're going.
> >>
> >> Not very practical for me these days.
> >
> > That wasn't my point. I thought you were interested in navigation. Try
> > reading Dava Sobel's _Longitude_. Fascinating read if you're really
> > interested in navigation, whether 300 years ago or present time.
> >>
> >> > --Walt (who is probably showing his age)
> >>
> >> When you flew, the B-52 was an important part of the military's
> >> aircraft inventory. Whereas today, the B-52 is an important part of
> >> the military's aircraft inventory.
> >>
> >
> > Nice putdown.
> >
> > I gave you some tantalizing clues about navigation. Pursue them or
> > ignore them. Up to you.
> >
> > --Walt
> >

[Walt]

Alrighty.

I have been trolled.

Thank you. That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

--Walt

BT wrote:
> As for sextants.. I must be an old guy then.. as I have crossed the oceans
> of air, relying on the celestial realm, my trusty sextant, a good watch and
> lots of math.
>
> BT

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Walt writes:
>
>
>>Good point. I read it as saying, "The B-52 is an important part of the
>>inventory and you're not."
>
>
> Nope, that's almost the opposite of what I intended.
>
>
>>But it still hurt.
>
>
> The least complimentary interpretation is not neccesarily the right
> interpretation.
>

By your own admission, you don't have time to be trite. Instead,go read
up on:

Navigation
Spherical Trigonometry
Trim
Weight and Balance
Aircraft Engines
Aerodynamics
GPS
WAAS
LNAV
etc., etc.

These are all areas in which you have made egregious errors in your
posts, obviously from knowing just enough to be dangerous, and stupid.

By your own admission, the information you glean from USENET is suspect,
so you might wish to consider a moratorium on the waste of your own time.

Instead, spend more time researching your topic, and less time
exercising your digits on the USENET keyboard before you ask inane
questions.

MSFS is basically video eye candy, with little basis in reality, other
than its representation of pretty pictures. If you insist on simming
without trying reality, you might at least consider a simulator that
makes at least SOME attempt at real world physics, like X-Plane. Though
from your constant whining about your busy schedule you haven't the time
to operate it correctly.

Then get back to us. And stop cross posting. In a generous mood, I'd
classify you as a student. Post at rec.aviation.student, if at all.

Should you ever make it back to the states, please do e-mail me. I'd be
more than happy to let you try everything you think you know in my own
aircraft.

Rip

[Michael Rhodes]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:59:28 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>Blanche > wrote in
:
>
>> Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover.
>> Repeatedly. And get tested on them on a recurring, regular basis. You
>> want to ask questions? Fine, but having access to the FARs - which you
>> do -- and reading them -- which you refuse to do -- are the the ground
>> rules for being here.
>
>Unfortunately, as long as some keep feeding this troll, he won't have a
>need to read the FAR's, AIMS or any other reference that's been provided to
>him.
>
>> Don't like the rules of the game? Go play another one, somewhere
>> else, with someone else. Stop wasting bandwidth.
>
>Manowar, do I agree with this, but some folks really disagree with me when
>I say they are wasting their time with this dude. But of course, I am
>being told that I am destroying my "reputation" (whatever that reputation
>that I so care little about) trying to bring some sanity back to this
>group.
>
>Blanche, been singing your tune for about 3 months now..... Only way to
>get rid of him is to not answer his questions.
>
>Allen


This is an apology to Allen Lieberma for a previous reply of mine. I
was out of line.

By your warning against mxs (or was it me?), I had felt singled out,
and inferred reasons external to this news group, (answering in that
direction). But that was not so.

I had asked a question concerning leaning, in a thread which was
revolutionizing its method. I am not a pilot, and felt like a troll
doing it. So your words might be interpreted as directed at others so
as not to feed me an answer. That was not what you meant. And a
complaint of mine is the feeding nature of discussion on the usenet.
Not enough of it. There are certain rules, however, by which that
should be done. My reply does not fit them. In that regard I think
we agree.
--
Michael

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> But you do have time to make aleph null cross posts to USENET. How
> convenient.

When I originate posts, I post them to relevant newsgroups, usually no
more than three, often only one. When I reply, I leave the list of
groups untouched.

USENET doesn't require much time, particularly for selective readers
and fast typists like myself.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> MSFS is basically video eye candy, with little basis in reality, other
> than its representation of pretty pictures.

Either you have no experience with MSFS, or you are deliberately and
rather egregiously exaggerating for reasons I do not know. In either
case, your post is highly misleading.

> If you insist on simming without trying reality, you might at least
> consider a simulator that makes at least SOME attempt at real world
> physics, like X-Plane.

X-Plane is less comprehensive than MSFS and has fewer aftermarket
options, although I've considered it, if I can find an English
version.

> Should you ever make it back to the states, please do e-mail me. I'd be
> more than happy to let you try everything you think you know in my own
> aircraft.

What type of aircraft do you have? Ideally, if I were to try flying a
real aircraft, I'd prefer one that I've flown in simulation, which
would especially mean a Baron 58 or a 737-800. I'd prefer a
full-motion simulator, though.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Nowadays my relationship with stars centers around my 12" Dob, but
> every evening I still look up at the sky and think, "okay, which three
> stars will give me the best fix".

And you actually did this in aircraft? I thought aircraft moved too
much for this sort of thing. Don't you have to sight them through a
sextant or similar instrument? Doesn't it bounce around a lot?

I've never learned astral navigation but I think it would be
interesting, even if it might not be practical very often these days.
I've always been fascinated by the SR-71 ANS, which would find and
lock onto stars even in broad daylight from the ground.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > Nowadays my relationship with stars centers around my 12" Dob, but
> > every evening I still look up at the sky and think, "okay, which three
> > stars will give me the best fix".
>
> And you actually did this in aircraft? I thought aircraft moved too
> much for this sort of thing. Don't you have to sight them through a
> sextant or similar instrument? Doesn't it bounce around a lot?
>
> I've never learned astral navigation but I think it would be
> interesting, even if it might not be practical very often these days.
> I've always been fascinated by the SR-71 ANS, which would find and
> lock onto stars even in broad daylight from the ground.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Yes, in a KC-135 going 450 knots. Each shot would take one minute; the
sextant had a built-in height averager. An assumed position was
calculated for each shot.

We used a bubble sextant, since a typical nautical sextant, which uses
an artificial horizon, wouldn't work very well; even if you could see
the horizon there would be an error since you were typically 6-7 miles
above the earth's surface.

Conversely, a bubble sextant wouldn't work very well on a boat because
of acceleration/deceleration errors induced by riding up and down
waves. Or so I've been told. I've never taken a celestial shot on a
boat, although I thought about doing it once when sailing my Hobie Cat
on Boulder Reservoir in Colorado. Wasn't much point though. I could see
Longs Peak so I knew where I was. :>)

Each star shot would create a Line Of Position. A three-star shot
would, ideally, create a small triangle, and you knew you were
somewhere in that triangle. With any luck your DR (dead reckoning)
position calculated from your last known position 30 minutes before
would be in the triangle. If not, that's when navigation quits being a
science and becomes more of an art.

Of course, we had other state-of-the-art tools, such as pressure
pattern navigation, but I think I explained that in a previous post.
:>)

--Walt

[A Lieberma]

Michael Rhodes > wrote in
:

> This is an apology to Allen Lieberma for a previous reply of mine. I
> was out of line.
>
> By your warning against mxs (or was it me?), I had felt singled out,
> and inferred reasons external to this news group, (answering in that
> direction). But that was not so.

Not a problem Michael. :-) I did not mean to single you out in any
manner shape or form. Just been advising names that I don't recognize as
regulars that they are dealing with a troll.

> I had asked a question concerning leaning, in a thread which was
> revolutionizing its method. I am not a pilot, and felt like a troll
> doing it. So your words might be interpreted as directed at others so
> as not to feed me an answer. That was not what you meant.

No, I haven't seen you be confrontational. Inquizative (sp?) and
question is good, but when a person becomes confronatational based on NO
experience, that becomes an issue with me.

As I have been stating all along, Mx questions are very good.

His responses are out of line, based on MSFS which in no manner shape or
form is a foundation for flight experience opinions. The human
physiology of flight simply is not simulated. I sure cannot imagine
getting the leans in front of my flat screen panel screen playing MSFS
under IMC. I cannot imagine the feeling of G force for steep turns. I
can't imagine the magic of flight on the days where the air is glassy
smooth on a Dell computer with a screen in front of me.

You at least, can relate (even if it's a little) to the above as you been
in a real plane.

It is his responses that makes him a troll when he confronts real time
experiences based on his MSFS experiences. The two don't intermingle
when you are talking human physiology.

> complaint of mine is the feeding nature of discussion on the usenet.
> Not enough of it. There are certain rules, however, by which that
> should be done. My reply does not fit them. In that regard I think
> we agree.

Absolutely agree.

The only way Mx will dissapear will be as a group, we do not respond to
his postings. This will be the only way these groups will go back to
normalcy.

Anybody that feels the need to respond to his postings should just email
him PRIVATELY. This way any new people won't be subjected to his
nonsense, and we don't have to waste time warning them they are dealing
with a troll.

Regulars already know he is a troll and for the most part do not respond
to him, so he is wanting new people to fall into his trolling ways.

Trolls need an audience, no audience (I.E. no replies), he will get bored
and move on.

Allen

[Dan Youngquist]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Mxsmanic wrote:

> BT writes:
>> if you would take a ground school course..
>> they would teach you the FARs
>
> If you don't know the answer, you can save your time and not mine by
> skipping the reply.

I think his point (or at least a corollarry to it) was, if you'd educate
yourself just a bit, you could save not only yourself, but a lot of
others, quite a bit of time and trouble. If your goal is just to learn
more about airplanes and flying, but not actually get a licence, then no
need to take ground school, just buy and read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Private-Pilot/dp/1560274492 ..or check
half.com for a cheaper outdated edition.

There. Now we'll see if your real interest is to learn, or just to harass
the aviation newsgroups.

-Dan
(Yes, I know the answer to your question, and so does BT.)

[[email protected]]

> And for thermometers, it seems that is precisely what Fahrenheit was
> up to. Fahrenheit was playing around and playing around and finally
> set ice water at 32, and body temperature at 96, so that there were
> 64 divisions between the two. That way, no matter where you are in
> the world, you can re-generate his thermometer. You stick the
> thermometer in ice water, and mark it there. Then you stick it
> under your tounge, and mark it there. Then you get a string, and
> fold it in half 6 times, and you have the 64 divisions between 32
> and 96!


The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an
assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the
thermometer at zero. Appears that the fella didn't try too hard,
perhaps not enjoying the cold, or else global warming was having an
up-cycle at that time. Then Fahrenheit took his wife's temperature and
called that 100, and it appears that she wasn't feeling so well that
day.

The mixing of systems sometimes is puzzling. It shows up in the
amounts of Tetraethyl Lead per gallon of avgas: 0.5 ml per gallon for
80, and 2.0 for 100LL. Metric per U.S.
Why would they do that?

Dan

[Jose[_1_]]

> The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an
> assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the
> thermometer at zero.

What I was taught (it may well be only half right) is that zero is the
freezing point of salt water (as salty as possible) and that 100 is body
temperature (he got that wrong). To the first part, it's why "below
zero" is significant - salt won't help on the roads.

> 0.5 ml per gallon for
> 80, and 2.0 for 100LL. Metric per U.S.

ml is a common small unit, and gallon is a common large unit, especially
in the context of gasoline.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

> The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an
> assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the
> thermometer at zero. Appears that the fella didn't try too hard,
> perhaps not enjoying the cold, or else global warming was having an
> up-cycle at that time.
>

Different stories around, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit. I
was taught the "lowest in Danzig" variant.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)