Visual STARs

[Mxsmanic]

If a STAR is marked VISUAL (FUBAR VISUAL APPROACH), and shows
hand-drawn paths and landmarks instead of navaids, does that mean it's
intended specifically for VFR, or for both VFR and IFR, or what? I'm
a bit confused by it because I thought all STARs were instrument
approaches. At the same time, I've heard ATC clear commercial flights
for the XYZ VISUAL approach, which implies that as long as conditions
permit a visual approach, it's okay for IFR, even though it gives only
landmarks on the ground.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

You need to learn the difference between VFR and VMC while flying IFR.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If a STAR is marked VISUAL (FUBAR VISUAL APPROACH),

That's not a STAR, it's a charted visual approach.

> and shows hand-drawn paths

They are hardly hand drawn.

> does that mean it's
> intended specifically for VFR, or for both VFR and IFR, or what?

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with VFR. It's a visual IFR
procedure. Do you know what a visual approach is? No you don't
because despite the fact that it will cost you nothing and has been
recommended multiple times, you refuse to bother to do anything
remotely behaving like a real pilot and read the Aeronautical
Information Manual. You'd rather be a leach on society.

> I'm
> a bit confused by it because I thought all STARs were instrument
> approaches.

You're confused in more wayys than this.

> At the same time, I've heard ATC clear commercial flights
> for the XYZ VISUAL approach, which implies that as long as conditions
> permit a visual approach, it's okay for IFR, even though it gives only
> landmarks on the ground.

Go look up Visual Approach in the AIM. It explains it fully, what
it's for, when it may be issued.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> If a STAR is marked VISUAL (FUBAR VISUAL APPROACH), and shows
> hand-drawn paths and landmarks instead of navaids, does that mean it's
> intended specifically for VFR, or for both VFR and IFR, or what? I'm
> a bit confused by it because I thought all STARs were instrument
> approaches. At the same time, I've heard ATC clear commercial flights
> for the XYZ VISUAL approach, which implies that as long as conditions
> permit a visual approach, it's okay for IFR, even though it gives only
> landmarks on the ground.
>

You are such a cocky baster that just does not know **** about this stuff.

I'd be happy to send $1 towards actual flying lessons for you provided
at least 500 folks here match me.

[Ricky Robbins]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:24:02 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>I'd be happy to send $1 towards actual flying lessons for you provided
>at least 500 folks here match me.

If he took the time he spent on simulators and the internet and
instead applied it to gainful employment he could afford his own
flight lessons. I'll pass on matching.

Rick

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You need to learn the difference between VFR and VMC while flying IFR.

I guess I won't learn it from you.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> That's not a STAR, it's a charted visual approach.

Sorry, it was under the IAPs on AirNav, not the STARs.

> They are hardly hand drawn.

They are obviously hand-drawn. See the three visual approaches for
KPHX. It looks like Illustrator.

> It's got nothing whatsoever to do with VFR. It's a visual IFR
> procedure.

OK.

> Go look up Visual Approach in the AIM. It explains it fully, what
> it's for, when it may be issued.

I'll look into it.

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

[Sam Spade]

Ricky Robbins wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:24:02 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd be happy to send $1 towards actual flying lessons for you provided
>>at least 500 folks here match me.
>
>
> If he took the time he spent on simulators and the internet and
> instead applied it to gainful employment he could afford his own
> flight lessons. I'll pass on matching.
>
> Rick

I guess my charity will never get off the ground then, so to speak.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>
>>You need to learn the difference between VFR and VMC while flying IFR.
>
>
> I guess I won't learn it from you.
>

Most of us here learned it by attending ground school, reading pertinent
aviation traning and reference publications and last, but not least,
taking flying lessons from an FAA certified flight instructor. We also
listen to him with an open mind and deferred to his statements of
instruction rather than being a smart-ass and telling him to "prove it."

All of these phases of becoming a pilot require a good atitude,
preparation, and the ability to spend money to compensate the experts
for their education/training and time spend preparing to teach us, as
well as their actual time training us.

Maybe you can get a scholarship.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Most of us here learned it by attending ground school, reading pertinent
> aviation traning and reference publications and last, but not least,
> taking flying lessons from an FAA certified flight instructor. We also
> listen to him with an open mind and deferred to his statements of
> instruction rather than being a smart-ass and telling him to "prove it."

I guess I won't learn it from you, either. I hope someone can provide
some kind of useful answer.

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

[dlevy]

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be discussed
with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......

......duh....

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> If a STAR is marked VISUAL (FUBAR VISUAL APPROACH), and shows
> hand-drawn paths and landmarks instead of navaids, does that mean it's
> intended specifically for VFR, or for both VFR and IFR, or what? I'm
> a bit confused by it because I thought all STARs were instrument
> approaches. At the same time, I've heard ATC clear commercial flights
> for the XYZ VISUAL approach, which implies that as long as conditions
> permit a visual approach, it's okay for IFR, even though it gives only
> landmarks on the ground.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

dlevy writes:

> It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be discussed
> with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......

Is it top secret? Do you have an answer?

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> dlevy writes:
>
>> It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be discussed
>> with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......
>
> Is it top secret? Do you have an answer?
>
Yes and I'm not going to share it with you. If you would like to find
out the answer, read the books and follow the suggestions given many
times here for you to learn it.

[Ross]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> dlevy writes:
>
>
>>It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be discussed
>>with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......
>
>
> Is it top secret? Do you have an answer?
>

It is not a secret. You will find almost all of the answers to your
questions from here. Bookmark this URL.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/

All pilots should have a hard copy and I have mine, although I will
admit that it is out of date. But, I do have access to the web.

Just remember that Google is your friend.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
CPCEL-IA
KSWI

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dlevy ]
> Posted At: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:58 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Visual STARs
> Subject: Re: Visual STARs
>
> It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be
discussed
> with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......
>
> .....duh....
>

You know, I was thinking the same thing. All of this information is
available in the AIM and other sources, but it would make good sense for
someone who wanted to appear to have been taught (therefore screened) to
fly in the US to get the "real world" info from active pilots.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross ]
> Posted At: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:36 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Visual STARs
> Subject: Re: Visual STARs
>
....
> It is not a secret. You will find almost all of the answers to your
> questions from here. Bookmark this URL.
>
>
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/a
im
> /
>
> All pilots should have a hard copy and I have mine, although I will
> admit that it is out of date. But, I do have access to the web.
>
> Just remember that Google is your friend.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> CPCEL-IA
> KSWI

With the added responsibility placed on CFIs and schools to screen their
clients, I wonder if Mr. dlevy doesn't have a valid point?

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Jim Carter > wrote:
>> From: dlevy ]
>> Posted At: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:58 PM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>
>> It doesn't seem reasonable to me that this information should be
> discussed
>> with someone that obviously doesn't fly.......
>>
>> .....duh....
>>
>
> You know, I was thinking the same thing. All of this information is
> available in the AIM and other sources, but it would make good sense for
> someone who wanted to appear to have been taught (therefore screened) to
> fly in the US to get the "real world" info from active pilots.

Funny thing is, even those in the flightsimming world[1] have told
him the same thing that active pilots have said: RTFM. Yet he still
either a) refuses to do so, or b) doesn't take their knowledge and
experience to mind, considers it wrong. Yet he isn't getting respect in
neither world.

BL.

[1] Pilots and ATC in the flightsimming world who happen to be real
world pilots and controllers.

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

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

iD8DBQFFvosByBkZmuMZ8L8RArAOAJ9WoHSNpuSJUQOdz9TYsX j6q2UirgCcCfeu
G90WJXxY7HvSrrmi5B9v/DA=
=DWvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Ross writes:

> Just remember that Google is your friend.

Unless pilots on the Internet.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> With the added responsibility placed on CFIs and schools to screen their
> clients, I wonder if Mr. dlevy doesn't have a valid point?

If so, you may as well shut down the newsgroup.

Security by obscurity doesn't work.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> You know, I was thinking the same thing. All of this information is
> available in the AIM and other sources, but it would make good sense for
> someone who wanted to appear to have been taught (therefore screened) to
> fly in the US to get the "real world" info from active pilots.

You must be joking. "Active pilots?" Nobody here is for real as far
as I'm concerned; I've been on USENET too long for that. You read and
then you verify. The person who answers you might or might not be a
pilot--you cannot trust what he says about that, and in any case it
doesn't matter, as long as the answer is right (or if the answer is
wrong). And so many pilots on these newsgroups have already been
wrong, in a way blatant enough to be obvious even to me, that I
wouldn't trust anything that anyone here says exclusively.

I suppose if someone wanted to appear just as ill-informed as some
real-world GA pilots, trying to get an idea of their mistakes might be
a motivation for coming here. But stupidity and ignorance know no
frontiers, so it wouldn't make anyone seem more like a US pilot.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Carter writes:
>
>> You know, I was thinking the same thing. All of this information is
>> available in the AIM and other sources, but it would make good sense for
>> someone who wanted to appear to have been taught (therefore screened) to
>> fly in the US to get the "real world" info from active pilots.
>
> You must be joking. "Active pilots?" Nobody here is for real as far
> as I'm concerned; I've been on USENET too long for that. You read and
> then you verify. The person who answers you might or might not be a
> pilot--you cannot trust what he says about that, and in any case it
> doesn't matter, as long as the answer is right (or if the answer is
> wrong). And so many pilots on these newsgroups have already been
> wrong, in a way blatant enough to be obvious even to me, that I
> wouldn't trust anything that anyone here says exclusively.
>
> I suppose if someone wanted to appear just as ill-informed as some
> real-world GA pilots, trying to get an idea of their mistakes might be
> a motivation for coming here. But stupidity and ignorance know no
> frontiers, so it wouldn't make anyone seem more like a US pilot.
>
So clearly you can't believe anything you see here. Just go away.

[A Lieberma]

John Theune > wrote in
news:SWyvh.1787$q86.574@trndny01:

> Mxsmanic wrote:

> So clearly you can't believe anything you see here. Just go away.

The problem is there is a Mx cult club out there that like feeding trolls (

As long as trolls keep getting fed, they keep coming back. :-(

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> So clearly you can't believe anything you see here.

I can believe it after verifying it. Also, a consensus of opinion
increases the credibility of some types of information.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> So clearly you can't believe anything you see here.
>
> I can believe it after verifying it. Also, a consensus of opinion
> increases the credibility of some types of information.

So when the consensus is telling you to go RTFM, it increases
its credibility.

So do as the masses say. RT F'n M.

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

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

iD8DBQFFvuzeyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtuVAJ9u6m/CIKDpKoYJDoF4nhJRKdCrSQCgwVyO
lsY2D2ii/15OxRHxSuRNUKc=
=dCtM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Carter writes:
>
>
>>With the added responsibility placed on CFIs and schools to screen their
>>clients, I wonder if Mr. dlevy doesn't have a valid point?
>
>
> If so, you may as well shut down the newsgroup.
>
> Security by obscurity doesn't work.
>
The group works fairly well amongst real pilots.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Carter writes:
>
>
>>You know, I was thinking the same thing. All of this information is
>>available in the AIM and other sources, but it would make good sense for
>>someone who wanted to appear to have been taught (therefore screened) to
>>fly in the US to get the "real world" info from active pilots.
>
>
> You must be joking. "Active pilots?" Nobody here is for real as far
> as I'm concerned; I've been on USENET too long for that. You read and
> then you verify. The person who answers you might or might not be a
> pilot--you cannot trust what he says about that, and in any case it
> doesn't matter, as long as the answer is right (or if the answer is
> wrong). And so many pilots on these newsgroups have already been
> wrong, in a way blatant enough to be obvious even to me, that I
> wouldn't trust anything that anyone here says exclusively.

If you were actually an instrument pilot you would be able to separate
the wheat from the chaff here.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Theune writes:
>
>
>>So clearly you can't believe anything you see here.
>
>
> I can believe it after verifying it. Also, a consensus of opinion
> increases the credibility of some types of information.
>
I, too, believe in consenus of opinion; especially that you are an
aggravating troll. Since you have been around the Internet for a long
time, you should take a look at yourself in the mirror.

[dlevy]

Yes, it does...... I know I have learned a lot here....none of which was
related to the "sim" guy.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> The group works fairly well amongst real pilots.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

It's not so much the questions he asks, but the laziness he demonstrates in
not first trying to look it up himself.

Then, of course, there are also his argumentative responses to those who
actually have flown a real airplane.

It's no wonder he can't find or hold a job.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> If you were actually an instrument pilot you would be able to separate
> the wheat from the chaff here.

How do you know that I'm not?

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>If you were actually an instrument pilot you would be able to separate
>>the wheat from the chaff here.
>
>
> How do you know that I'm not?
>

Yes, I do.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> If you were actually an instrument pilot you would be able to separate
>> the wheat from the chaff here.
>
> How do you know that I'm not?



An instrument pilot wouldn't ask such god awful stupid questions.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> An instrument pilot wouldn't ask such god awful stupid questions.

A real pilot wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>An instrument pilot wouldn't ask such god awful stupid questions.
>
>
> A real pilot wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.
>

Not only is he a real pilot he makes a living as an air traffic
controller, you nitwit.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/30/07 16:59, Sam Spade wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>An instrument pilot wouldn't ask such god awful stupid questions.
>>
>>
>> A real pilot wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.
>>
>
> Not only is he a real pilot he makes a living as an air traffic
> controller, you nitwit.

Yea, I just didn't understand the logic that says that a real pilot
wouldn't call an idiot an idiot ;-)

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Not only is he a real pilot he makes a living as an air traffic
> controller, you nitwit.

That cannot be, since real pilots and real controllers do not engage
in personal attacks.

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

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mxsmanic ]
> Posted At: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:10 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Visual STARs
> Subject: Re: Visual STARs
>
....
> That cannot be, since real pilots and real controllers do not engage
> in personal attacks.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You know MX, you claim to come to this forum seeking knowledge and
guidance. When it is pointed out to you that just such has been offered
many times over and you have even been given the URL such that you don't
have to go research sources, you still continue to argue and display an
attitude such as in your above encapsulated statement.

Not only is this statement an example of what others have been trying to
tell you, but it isn't even logically correct and can't be defended. A
personal attack has no relevance to whether a person is or isn't a
licensed pilot or controller any more than it has on the person being a
simulation proponent.

When all this started, some of us took pity on your pleas of being in a
foreign country and unable to access the type and style of training
found in the United States. Your continued aggravating comments and
total lack of cooperation with any of the guidance offered by
contributors to this forum have finally convinced me personally to find
another newsreader that will block your address. MAPIlabs newsreader
plug-in for Outlook lacks this feature, which hasn't been a real problem
until your continued postings.

Is this attack personal? Yes, but it is also a valid summarization of
the current state of affairs in your threads.

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:001101c744de$5f791df0
$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100:

>. Your continued aggravating comments and
> total lack of cooperation with any of the guidance offered by
> contributors to this forum have finally convinced me personally to find
> another newsreader that will block your address. MAPIlabs newsreader
> plug-in for Outlook lacks this feature, which hasn't been a real problem
> until your continued postings.

Thank you Jim!!!! Now if only others would do the same.... We would be
back to normal.

Allen

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Not only is he a real pilot he makes a living as an air traffic
>>controller, you nitwit.
>
>
> That cannot be, since real pilots and real controllers do not engage
> in personal attacks.
>

And, where is that written?

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> And, where is that written?

Are you saying that real pilots and controllers lack integrity?

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>And, where is that written?
>
>
> Are you saying that real pilots and controllers lack integrity?
>

You're answering my question with a question; the act of someone short
on ideas and integrity.

[dlevy]

He asked, "where is that written?"

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> And, where is that written?
>
> Are you saying that real pilots and controllers lack integrity?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>And, where is that written?
>
>
> Are you saying that real pilots and controllers lack integrity?
>

Who is Dagwood's wife?