"Rolling" to ATC

[Mxsmanic]

Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?

I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.

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

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Are you sure you don't mean trolling?

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

None at all.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 4, 12:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If your takeoff clearance includes "no delay" due to landing traffic
behind you, then the "rolling" information could be of some use to the
controller. However, this is not something that is widely used. I
suspect it is because the controller cannot simply rely on your
transmission for his decision to issue a landing clearance.

[Bob Gardner]

If the controller's vision is good enough for a second-class medical, it is
good enough to see if you are rolling or not.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 4, 12:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> If your takeoff clearance includes "no delay" due to landing traffic
> behind you, then the "rolling" information could be of some use to the
> controller. However, this is not something that is widely used. I
> suspect it is because the controller cannot simply rely on your
> transmission for his decision to issue a landing clearance.
>
>
>
>

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:59:26 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
>I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.

Are we talking barrel or aileron rolls?

Don

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 6:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Gardner writes:

> If the controller's vision is good enough for a second-class medical, it is
> good enough to see if you are rolling or not.

Then why do some pilots say it? Or is this one of those insoluble
issues like whether or not to say "as filed" when asking for
clearance?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tuite writes:

> Are we talking barrel or aileron rolls?

Rolling in the sense of wheels rolling on the runway, as the aircraft
prepares to take off.

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..

Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
who might be in your way.)

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 9:46 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> > been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> > them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> > generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>
> Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
> saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
> although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
> who might be in your way.)
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

At a controlled airfield 'rolling' is quite redundant, since before
you can takeoff you must have received a clearance to takeoff and then
have read it back. Rolling is useful at uncontrolled airfields
because there is no ATC, therefore no clearance required to takeoff so
it lets other pilots who might be on downwind or finals know you'll be
off the runway in a few seconds and they will be able to land. At an
uncontrolled airfield I will often make a radio call when lining up
and another for rolling..

[[email protected]]

The way I have heard 'rolling' used, and the way I have sometimes used
it myself, is if given a clearance along the lines of "Cessna XYZ,
cleared for take-off, no delay" or "Cessna XYZ, cleared for take-off -
expedite, landing traffic".

In this situation, when you acknowledge the clearnace, you could say
"Cleared for take-off, Cessna XYZ". This does not confirm to the
controller that you heard the 'expedite', and so may cause the
controller to repeat the instruction. Or you can say "Cleared for take-
off, no delay, Cessna XYZ". Or "Cleared for take-off, rolling, Cessna
XYZ" or even "Rolling, Cessna XYZ".

As previously advised to in a thread a while back in this group, when
given a take-off clearance with an 'expedite' in it, I tend to glance
up the final approach path, then push the throttle in, then key the
mike for the acknowledgement. It's nice when controllers do things
efficiently, saving me 0.1 hour at rental rates, so I try to be as
responsive as possible in return.

[Tony]

If tower says clear for immediate takeoff, I announce 'rolling'. They
can tell ATC.
On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> > been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> > them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> > generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>
> Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
> saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
> although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
> who might be in your way.)
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> At a controlled airfield 'rolling' is quite redundant, since before
> you can takeoff you must have received a clearance to takeoff and then
> have read it back. Rolling is useful at uncontrolled airfields
> because there is no ATC, therefore no clearance required to takeoff so
> it lets other pilots who might be on downwind or finals know you'll be
> off the runway in a few seconds and they will be able to land. At an
> uncontrolled airfield I will often make a radio call when lining up
> and another for rolling..

Thanks, that seems logical.

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

[Viperdoc]

However, although it makes sense, pilots are not required to acknowledge or
read back a take off or landing clearance.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The way I have heard 'rolling' used, and the way I have sometimes used
> it myself, is if given a clearance along the lines of "Cessna XYZ,
> cleared for take-off, no delay" or "Cessna XYZ, cleared for take-off -
> expedite, landing traffic".
>
> In this situation, when you acknowledge the clearnace, you could say
> "Cleared for take-off, Cessna XYZ". This does not confirm to the
> controller that you heard the 'expedite', and so may cause the
> controller to repeat the instruction. Or you can say "Cleared for take-
> off, no delay, Cessna XYZ". Or "Cleared for take-off, rolling, Cessna
> XYZ" or even "Rolling, Cessna XYZ".
>
> As previously advised to in a thread a while back in this group, when
> given a take-off clearance with an 'expedite' in it, I tend to glance
> up the final approach path, then push the throttle in, then key the
> mike for the acknowledgement. It's nice when controllers do things
> efficiently, saving me 0.1 hour at rental rates, so I try to be as
> responsive as possible in return.

This is the way I do it, mostly. If the controller makes it clear
that I must take off immediately, I acknowledge the clearance and also
indicate that I'm actually moving. Conversely, if the controller does
not make it clear that I must move quickly, and if for some reason
there is any significant delay between my readback of the clearance
and my actual take-off, I will advise the controller when I'm actually
rolling.

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

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> This is the way I do it, mostly. If the controller makes it clear
> that I must take off immediately, I acknowledge the clearance and also
> indicate that I'm actually moving. Conversely, if the controller does
> not make it clear that I must move quickly, and if for some reason
> there is any significant delay between my readback of the clearance
> and my actual take-off, I will advise the controller when I'm actually
> rolling.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Casey Wilson writes:

> NOTICE!!!!
> Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
> issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
> aircraft.

The current topic is communication with ATC, not flying by the seat of
the pants, and in this context, real aircraft experience is
irrelevant. If you think otherwise, please explain why, specifically.

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

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> > been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> > them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> > generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>
> Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
> saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
> although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
> who might be in your way.)

At an uncontrolled field, basically what you're up to...

taxi 02
lining up and rolling 02

--
Duncan

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>

What is the name of Dagwood's wife?

[cavedweller]

On Feb 4, 6:54 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> > are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> > I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> > formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> > discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> > the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> > "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> What is the name of Dagwood's wife?

Who's Dagwood? :)

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 12:01 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> However, although it makes sense, pilots are not required to acknowledge or
> read back a take off or landing clearance.

I dunno what country you fly in, but I am talking about New Zealand,
and the rules here are obviously somewhat different to wherever you
fly..

On the NZ CAA website, you will find:

Advisory Circular AC 91-9 & AC 172-1

This is from the appropriate section of that document:

4.12 Readback Requirements
4.12.1 A pilot is required to acknowledge receipt of the following ATC
clearances, information or
instructions, which are transmitted by voice, by a full readback
followed by the aircraft callsign:
· ATC route, approach and departure clearances including any amendment
thereof;
· clearances to VFR flights to operate within controlled airspace,
including entering or vacating the
circuit;
· clearances (including conditional clearances) to operate on the
manoeuvring area at a controlled
aerodrome including:
o clearances to land on or take off from the runway-in-use;
o clearances to enter, cross, or backtrack on the runway-in-use;
o instructions to remain on or hold clear of the runway-in-use;
o taxi instructions including a taxi route and holding point where
specified;
· runway-in-use;
· SSR codes;
· level instructions;
· heading and speed instructions;
· altimeter settings; and
· frequency, after frequency change instructions.



This relates to Part 91 of our CAA rules, and is exactly what we were
taught when getting our licenses.

[Stubby]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Casey Wilson writes:
>
>> NOTICE!!!!
>> Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
>> issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
>> aircraft.
>
> The current topic is communication with ATC, not flying by the seat of
> the pants, and in this context, real aircraft experience is
> irrelevant. If you think otherwise, please explain why, specifically.
>
This is all covered in the FAR/AIM. Let's stop feeding the troll while
he reads up on the subject.

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > chris writes:
>
> > > In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> > > been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> > > them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> > > generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>
> > Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
> > saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
> > although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
> > who might be in your way.)
>
> At an uncontrolled field, basically what you're up to...
>
> taxi 02
> lining up and rolling 02
>
> --
> Duncan

Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
sideways to a stop. I think he was quite pleased with himself..

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Not required in the States- there are exceptions, such as hold short
instructions.

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 1:31 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Not required in the States- there are exceptions, such as hold short
> instructions.

Sounds a bit dodgy!!!

[Gary[_2_]]

On Feb 4, 6:09 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> This is the way I do it, mostly. If the controller makes it clear
> that I must take off immediately, I acknowledge the clearance and also
> indicate that I'm actually moving.

That's nice. Of course, in sim-world, when the controller makes it
clear that you must take off immediately, you can walk to the fridge
for a soda, eat a bag of chips, take a nap, annoy people on usenet for
a couple of hours, and then take off...and it won't make a bit of
difference, in the real world.

[Mxsmanic]

Stubby writes:

> This is all covered in the FAR/AIM.

Is it? Where? I couldn't find any mention of this phrase in the AIM
or FARs.

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
> scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
> radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
> warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
> circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
> sideways to a stop.

So why were you flying with him?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> That's nice. Of course, in sim-world, when the controller makes it
> clear that you must take off immediately, you can walk to the fridge
> for a soda, eat a bag of chips, take a nap, annoy people on usenet for
> a couple of hours, and then take off...and it won't make a bit of
> difference, in the real world.

In the world of simulation, the real world doesn't matter. Two
different contexts. And a long delay for take-off in the world of
simulation does make a big difference in that world, exactly as it
does in real life.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 2:15 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
> > scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
> > radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
> > warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
> > circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
> > sideways to a stop.
>
> So why were you flying with him?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bloody good question!!! Others have asked me that too!

Umm, his mate was a mate of mine who kept bugging me to go for a fly
with him because I apparently would really enjoy the experience!!! In
an effort to get them to shut the hell up I agreed to go with him for
a flight. Never again!!!

And his did his big skid in front of three of our club's instructors,
who all were seriously unimpressed!

[Dave[_3_]]

Correct.....

Mx is a sim pilot, - but he has the right idea most of the time,
and stays civil _all the time_.

The OPINIONS of ANYBODY here must be considered carefully by all who
read them....

There is no licence required to participate in this group, or express
opinions..

Mx HAS MADE IT CLEAR he has not flown a plane as PIC.

So... should we ASSUME everybody else posting here HAS flown as PIC in
a REAL plane?

I don't, and I take serious pause when I read some of the stuff posted
here....

This IS usenet..

YMMV....

Dave



Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:25:52 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>
>> This is the way I do it, mostly. If the controller makes it clear
>> that I must take off immediately, I acknowledge the clearance and also
>> indicate that I'm actually moving. Conversely, if the controller does
>> not make it clear that I must move quickly, and if for some reason
>> there is any significant delay between my readback of the clearance
>> and my actual take-off, I will advise the controller when I'm actually
>> rolling.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>NOTICE!!!!
>Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
>issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
>aircraft.
>

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:00:24 -0800, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:59:26 +0100, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>
>>Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>>are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>>I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>>formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>>discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>>the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>>"Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
>Are we talking barrel or aileron rolls?

On the runway? Takes a plane with a pretty short wing span.


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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Don Tuite wrote:
>> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> Are we talking barrel or aileron rolls?



Toilet.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 4 Feb 2007 12:30:46 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Feb 5, 6:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
>been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
>them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
>generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..

We don't even then. Typically when leaving the hold line the pilot
will announce XXX departing runway (what ever) at (airport name)

At controlled fields requiring a read back, if it's only XXX cleared
for departure (or take off), I just acknowledge with my N#. If there
is more to the clearance/instructions I will repeat an abbreviated
version. If I receive instructions from the tower for runway 050 such
as XXX on departure, fly runway heading, climb to and maintain two
thousand five hundred., cleared for the departure. Then I'll read
back, zero five zero, two thousand five hundred, cleared for
departure, XXX.
However if told to expedite, I will acknowledge the expedite.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 4 Feb 2007 16:09:55 -0800, "cavedweller" >
wrote:

>On Feb 4, 6:54 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> > are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> > I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> > formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> > discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> > the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> > "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>> What is the name of Dagwood's wife?
>
>Who's Dagwood? :)

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 3:17 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2007 12:30:46 -0800, "chris" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 6:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
> >> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>
> >> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
> >> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
> >> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
> >> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
> >> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>
> >> --
> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> >In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> >been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> >them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> >generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>
> We don't even then. Typically when leaving the hold line the pilot
> will announce XXX departing runway (what ever) at (airport name)
>
> At controlled fields requiring a read back, if it's only XXX cleared
> for departure (or take off), I just acknowledge with my N#. If there
> is more to the clearance/instructions I will repeat an abbreviated
> version. If I receive instructions from the tower for runway 050 such
> as XXX on departure, fly runway heading, climb to and maintain two
> thousand five hundred., cleared for the departure. Then I'll read
> back, zero five zero, two thousand five hundred, cleared for
> departure, XXX.
> However if told to expedite, I will acknowledge the expedite.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting...

Just slightly off topic - here in NZ there's usually so little traffic
outside the main centres it's also not uncommon for people to spend
far too long chatting to their mates and blocking up the radio..
Especially on 119.1 which seems to cover just about every uncontrolled
airfield, at least in my part of the country.. Damn annoying when that
happens!

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Umm, his mate was a mate of mine who kept bugging me to go for a fly
> with him because I apparently would really enjoy the experience!!! In
> an effort to get them to shut the hell up I agreed to go with him for
> a flight. Never again!!!

You risked your life just to shut someone up? Did you know how bad
this pilot was in advance, or did you have any inkling that he might
not be the best pilot around?

Flying with someone whose skills you've not been able to at least
roughly assess is even more dangerous than driving with someone under
such circumstances. I don't know that I'd be willing to fly with
anyone who is practically a stranger to me, at least in general
aviation (obviously I do this every time I take a commercial flight).

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dave > wrote:

> Mx is a sim pilot, - but he has the right idea most of the time,
> and stays civil _all the time_.

Either mx has changed or ....

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 3:40 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Umm, his mate was a mate of mine who kept bugging me to go for a fly
> > with him because I apparently would really enjoy the experience!!! In
> > an effort to get them to shut the hell up I agreed to go with him for
> > a flight. Never again!!!
>
> You risked your life just to shut someone up? Did you know how bad
> this pilot was in advance, or did you have any inkling that he might
> not be the best pilot around?
>
> Flying with someone whose skills you've not been able to at least
> roughly assess is even more dangerous than driving with someone under
> such circumstances. I don't know that I'd be willing to fly with
> anyone who is practically a stranger to me, at least in general
> aviation (obviously I do this every time I take a commercial flight).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Yeah, well that's probably a fair call!!

No, I didn't know how dangerous he was beforehand, although he does
tend to be a bit of a cowboy in real life - his idea of weeding the
yard behind his work is to pour petrol on it and set fire to it! I
understand he has had a long relationship with the local fire
department...

I did actually think he was going to kill us all!! And being in the
back seat sort of limits your options if it goes pear shaped..

I have found since then, that for every dodgy pilot I meet there are
several good ones - I flew with a couple of people from our club after
that and I was just stunned at how good they were - certainly inspires
you to improve your own flying...

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> I have found since then, that for every dodgy pilot I meet there are
> several good ones ...

Yeah, but it only takes one bad one to spoil your whole day (and mess
up the statistics).

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I have found since then, that for every dodgy pilot I meet there are
> > several good ones ...
>
> Yeah, but it only takes one bad one to spoil your whole day (and mess
> up the statistics).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thankfully our club has not lost an aircraft for a very long time..
Private owners I can't speak for, but I think the club environment is
good for keeping people's flying at a safe level, those outside the
club system can do whatever they like for the two years in between
flight reviews, and some of it can be downright shocking! I don't
have anything to back that up except a gut feeling, and knowing our
instructors I see the standard they require of club members.

There has been a couple of minor dings but I think the last crash of a
club plane was about 15 years ago.. And they all walked away from it.

[Newps]

Tony wrote:
> If tower says clear for immediate takeoff, I announce 'rolling'. They
> can tell ATC.



Who is "they"? And what have they done with ATC?

[alice]

> If your takeoff clearance includes "no delay" due to landing traffic
> behind you, then the "rolling" information could be of some use to the
> controller. However, this is not something that is widely used. I
> suspect it is because the controller cannot simply rely on your
> transmission for his decision to issue a landing clearance.

Thats a good guess Andy.Did anyone ask what you "Suspect".Are you a
pilot?

[Morgans]

"chris" > wrote

I dunno what country you fly in, but I am talking about New Zealand,
and the rules here are obviously somewhat different to wherever you
fly..

Wow, you have to read back about everything.

What is there that you DO NOT have to read back?

Seriously?
--
Jim in NC

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message

> Toilet.

Sausage.

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 5, 4:44 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote
>
> I dunno what country you fly in, but I am talking about New Zealand,
> and the rules here are obviously somewhat different to wherever you
> fly..
>
> Wow, you have to read back about everything.
>
> What is there that you DO NOT have to read back?
>
> Seriously?
> --
> Jim in NC

Yeah, there are things you don't have to read back, but if it's an
instruction you'd still have to acknowledge it - Wilco is usually
appropriate.. I am struggling to actually bring an example to mind.
Something like 'report orbit complete' or 'report complete over the
city' or 'report sighting Golden Eagle passing your 2 o'clock five
miles'

Any other Kiwi pilots listening in like to jump in here and help me
out?? I certainly recognise when to read back and when not to, when
I'm actually doing it, a bit hard to think up a good example right now
though..

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Wow, you have to read back about everything.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing to read back. Why wouldn't
you read back something important like a take-off clearance?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I couldn't find any mention of this phrase in the AIM
> or FARs.
>

That provides a nice clue, doesn't it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> Mx HAS MADE IT CLEAR he has not flown a plane as PIC.
>

Where in the statement Casey attached his warning to did he do that? As
I read, he did quite the contrary: He desperately tried to give the
impression he did real flying.

Not everybody here follows every post. And with that in mind, MX is an
imposter.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger[_4_]]

On 4 Feb 2007 18:37:32 -0800, "chris" >
wrote:

>On Feb 5, 3:17 pm, Roger > wrote:
>> On 4 Feb 2007 12:30:46 -0800, "chris" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 6:59 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> >> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> >> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> >> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> >> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> >> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> >> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>> >In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
>> >been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
>> >them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
>> >generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
>>
>> We don't even then. Typically when leaving the hold line the pilot
>> will announce XXX departing runway (what ever) at (airport name)
>>
>> At controlled fields requiring a read back, if it's only XXX cleared
>> for departure (or take off), I just acknowledge with my N#. If there
>> is more to the clearance/instructions I will repeat an abbreviated
>> version. If I receive instructions from the tower for runway 050 such
>> as XXX on departure, fly runway heading, climb to and maintain two
>> thousand five hundred., cleared for the departure. Then I'll read
>> back, zero five zero, two thousand five hundred, cleared for
>> departure, XXX.
>> However if told to expedite, I will acknowledge the expedite.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Interesting...
>
>Just slightly off topic - here in NZ there's usually so little traffic
>outside the main centres it's also not uncommon for people to spend
>far too long chatting to their mates and blocking up the radio..
>Especially on 119.1 which seems to cover just about every uncontrolled
>airfield, at least in my part of the country.. Damn annoying when that
>happens!

We have something similar on 122.8 and 129.0. When it's a nice week
end day both frequencies will be crowced with legit traffic. Then
some one will start up a conversation or end up sitting on the mike
button.

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

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Casey Wilson writes:
>
>> NOTICE!!!!
>> Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
>> issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
>> aircraft.
>
> The current topic is communication with ATC, not flying by the seat of
> the pants, and in this context, real aircraft experience is
> irrelevant. If you think otherwise, please explain why, specifically.
>
Because you have received no training nor have you passed any of the
testing required for the operation of a aircraft. In this case you are
asking about communication with ATC which for you is also composed of
simulation users who may or may not have received any formal training
and there is just no way of knowing if they are following the same rules
as the ATC that pilots have to deal with. As you have said so many
times, you don't anything that is said on this group at face value,
therefor why should we? Casey is just making it clear to anyone who
happens into this thread without knowing your background to be wary of
anything you say as it's likely to be wrong.

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article >,
says...
>
> "chris" > wrote
>
> I dunno what country you fly in, but I am talking about New Zealand,
> and the rules here are obviously somewhat different to wherever you
> fly..
>
> Wow, you have to read back about everything.
>
> What is there that you DO NOT have to read back?
>
> Seriously?

Ground controllers - w' the exception of taxi intructions, typically
we'd read that back. Otherwise an acknowlegement is fine.

Advisory service, ie, Information, you'd just read back the QNH.

Tower and Control - you copy back the lot (they wanna know you've got it
right).

--
Duncan

[Duncan (NZ)]

In article om>, pa28_
says...
> On Feb 5, 12:42 pm, Duncan (NZ) > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > > chris writes:
> >
> > > > In this country (NZ) we seem to hear 'rolling' from people who have
> > > > been trained at uncontrolled airfields and seem to bring that with
> > > > them when flying into controlled airfields. The rest of us don't
> > > > generally say it until we get to an uncontrolled airfield..
> >
> > > Do you say anything prior to the take-off? If so, what do you add by
> > > saying "rolling"? (If not, I can understand why you'd say it,
> > > although by the time you _are_ rolling, it's a bit late to warn anyone
> > > who might be in your way.)
> >
> > At an uncontrolled field, basically what you're up to...
> >
> > taxi 02
> > lining up and rolling 02
> >
> > --
> > Duncan
>
> Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
> scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
> radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
> warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
> circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
> sideways to a stop. I think he was quite pleased with himself..

Don't worry, the same thing happens at Wigram too - in fact there's a
dude there that's gonna get his arse busted one day by CAA (someone will
complain), or... he'll take someone out. When *he* wants to fly, he
just cranks it up and rolls away (no runway req'd! :) - just nails it.

--
Duncan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>> Toilet.
>
> Sausage.


Which came first?

[Oz Lander[_1_]]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:09:30 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote the following
in skywriting:

> Crash Lander wrote:
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Toilet.
>>
>> Sausage.
>
>
> Which came first?

Well, a bad sausage would come before the toilet. ;-)
--
Oz Lander
I'm not always right, But I'm never wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
et...
> Are you sure you don't mean trolling?
>

Shoots and SCORES!!!!

[Mxsmanic]

Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if any,
would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator
that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that is,
actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when playing with Microsoft
Flight Simulator?

I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator,
but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that merit it, when
playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just at pilot
discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or what. It is
normally independent of the readback of the take-off clearance (which
precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, although
sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance, when playing
with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Oz Lander wrote:
>>>>> Toilet.
>>>
>>> Sausage.
>>
>>
>> Which came first?
>
> Well, a bad sausage would come before the toilet. ;-)


Not necessarily. <G>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> In the world of simulation, the real world doesn't matter. Two
> different contexts.

OK, Anthony you must have gotten your meds balanced this weekend so I am
going to use this moment of lucidity to ask you a question. If you
understand that sims and real life are two different things then why do you
insist on posting questions about sims here when there is a perfectly good
flight sim newsgroup?

[Newps]

Exactly. Playing.




Mxsmanic wrote:

> Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if any,
> would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator
> that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, that is,
> actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when playing with Microsoft
> Flight Simulator?
>
> I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator,
> but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that merit it, when
> playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just at pilot
> discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or what. It is
> normally independent of the readback of the take-off clearance (which
> precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, although
> sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance, when playing
> with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> In the world of simulation, the real world doesn't matter. Two
>> different contexts.
>
> OK, Anthony you must have gotten your meds balanced this weekend so I am
> going to use this moment of lucidity to ask you a question. If you
> understand that sims and real life are two different things then why do
> you insist on posting questions about sims here when there is a perfectly
> good flight sim newsgroup?

Simulation _simulates_ reality, otherwise it's pure FANTASY.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly. Playing.
>
Hmmm...playing with himself.
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Under what conditions, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, if
>> any, would you explicitly tell ATC, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator that you are rolling, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off, when
>> playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, but I don't know if there are any formal circumstances that
>> merit it, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or if it is just
>> at pilot discretion, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator, or
>> what. It is normally independent of the readback of the take-off
>> clearance (which precedes it), when playing with Microsoft Flight
>> Simulator, although sometimes I hear "Rolling" without a readback of the
>> clearance, when playing with Microsoft Flight Simulator.
>>

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

See? That wasn't so hard now, was it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>> In the world of simulation, the real world doesn't matter. Two
>>> different contexts.
>>
>> OK, Anthony you must have gotten your meds balanced this weekend so
>> I am going to use this moment of lucidity to ask you a question. If
>> you understand that sims and real life are two different things then
>> why do you insist on posting questions about sims here when there is
>> a perfectly good flight sim newsgroup?
>
> Simulation _simulates_ reality, otherwise it's pure FANTASY.

Matt, What does that have to do with the question I asked Anthony?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Under what conditions, if any, would you explicitly tell ATC that you
>> are rolling, that is, actually rolling on the runway for take-off?
>>
>> I hear this used occasionally, but I don't know if there are any
>> formal circumstances that merit it, or if it is just at pilot
>> discretion, or what. It is normally independent of the readback of
>> the take-off clearance (which precedes it), although sometimes I hear
>> "Rolling" without a readback of the clearance.
>>
>
> What is the name of Dagwood's wife?

Blondie.

Al G

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Exactly. Playing.

Yes, that's what I said. What is your point?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> See? That wasn't so hard now, was it?

What are you referring to?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That provides a nice clue, doesn't it?

Not really. I don't see Phoenix Sky Harbor in either document, but
that doesn't mean that the airport doesn't exist.

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

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> Because you have received no training nor have you passed any of the
> testing required for the operation of a aircraft.

I haven studied communication with ATC, and that's all that is
required to participate in this discussion. I don't need any tests or
training in the use of flight controls, although I do have the latter
(albeit in simulation).

You're trying to associate one type of skill with a domain to which it
is unconnected. You don't need anything other than a book to learn
ATC communication.

In the course of my study, I've encountered pilots saying "rolling"
when taking off, even though there seems to be no formal recognition
of this phrase. I was curious as to when and why pilots choose to use
it. I don't make a distinction between simulation and real life in
this case because they are both identical in this context.

> In this case you are
> asking about communication with ATC which for you is also composed of
> simulation users who may or may not have received any formal training
> and there is just no way of knowing if they are following the same rules
> as the ATC that pilots have to deal with.

As I've already explained: (1) many of the controllers in simulation
are also controllers in real life; (2) controllers in simulation
receive training very similar to that used in real life, and generally
use the same reference materials (7110.65 in the U.S., and the AIM);
and (3) my observations here come not only from simulation but also
from listening to real ATC, and from transcripts of real ATC.

Here again, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

> As you have said so many
> times, you don't anything that is said on this group at face value,
> therefor why should we?

I don't know. Why should you?

> Casey is just making it clear to anyone who
> happens into this thread without knowing your background to be wary of
> anything you say as it's likely to be wrong.

You haven't explained why anything I say is likely to be wrong.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how clueless many so-called pilots are here.
They argue ceaselessly with each other, and in many cases all of the
"pilots" arguing are wrong--nobody has the right answer. Sometimes
nobody has _any_ answer, just speculation and argument.

It's puzzling because, on the one hand, it seems that the requirements
for becoming a pilot are fairly rigorous, and yet, on the other hand,
many people who claim to be pilots are severely misinformed.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> If you
> understand that sims and real life are two different things then why do you
> insist on posting questions about sims here when there is a perfectly good
> flight sim newsgroup?

The goal of simulation is to precisely duplicate real life. Therefore
questions about real life are relevant to simulation (whereas the
converse is not necessarily true).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> Simulation _simulates_ reality, otherwise it's pure FANTASY.

Not quite. Simulation simulates reality, yes. But it's not fantasy.
By definition, fantasy is not simulation. Simulation is worthy of the
name only to the extent that it duplicates the thing being simulated.

That is the fundamental distinction between gaming or fantasy and
simulation: simulation respects the constraints of the real world
being simulated, whereas fantasy does not (and indeed fantasy may have
no connection to the real world at all).

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> If you
>> understand that sims and real life are two different things then why
>> do you insist on posting questions about sims here when there is a
>> perfectly good flight sim newsgroup?
>
> The goal of simulation is to precisely duplicate real life. Therefore
> questions about real life are relevant to simulation (whereas the
> converse is not necessarily true).

That does not change the fact that this is a newsgroup aimed at real
piloting not sims. And, as I said, thee is a perfectly good sim newsgroup.
You posting here is no different than I posting to a group that is for RV
builders with questions and comments about my 601XL.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Bloody good question!!! Others have asked me that too!
>
> Umm, his mate was a mate of mine who kept bugging me to go for a fly
> with him because I apparently would really enjoy the experience!!! In
> an effort to get them to shut the hell up I agreed to go with him for
> a flight. Never again!!!
>
> And his did his big skid in front of three of our club's instructors,
> who all were seriously unimpressed!
>
Gee, I wish I could clain to have never made a vaguely similar mistake.

Of course, I never made *exactly* the same mistake again...

Peter

P.S.: On a much lighter note, an old friend swears up and down that you can
prevent a recently dropped soda can from fizzing over by inverting it and
rapping it once, sharply on a firm surface--such as the floor or a table.
From time to time, he asks if I've tried it; and I claim that didn't drop a
soda for a while and then forgot. This ritual has continued for years.
:-)))

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> John Theune writes:
>
>> Because you have received no training nor have you passed any of the
>> testing required for the operation of a aircraft.
>
> I haven studied communication with ATC, and that's all that is
> required to participate in this discussion. I don't need any tests or
> training in the use of flight controls, although I do have the latter
> (albeit in simulation).

You're right here. You haven't studied communication with ATC.
A lot of it is depicted in the .65, which if you want to know about
communication with ATC, you should read.

> You're trying to associate one type of skill with a domain to which it
> is unconnected. You don't need anything other than a book to learn
> ATC communication.

Wrong. Just like any science, you have two sections: Theory,
and Application. Just because you read to understand the
theory/philosophy of it, it is a different bear altogether when you see
it applied in everyday use. In this instance, you need both. One is not
good enough.

> In the course of my study, I've encountered pilots saying "rolling"
> when taking off, even though there seems to be no formal recognition
> of this phrase. I was curious as to when and why pilots choose to use
> it. I don't make a distinction between simulation and real life in
> this case because they are both identical in this context.

Curious? Oh well, in for a sheep. When and why? They don't need
to for the most, and it's just a courtesy that pilots have just to give
ATC a heads up that they are rolling. Consider the following:

At KLAS, taxiway B is used to taxi outbound to runway 25R. A
pilot is taxiing outbound, #1, and Local asks him/her if they can accept
intersection A3 for departure. They respond that they can, so Local
clears them for takeoff from A3:

SWA1205, wind 250 at 3, runway at Alpha 3, cleared for takeoff.

Pilot reads that back, even though they hadn't made it to A3
yet. But when he/she gets there, turns the corner, enters the runway,
as a courtesy, he notifies the controller that he's rolling.

Nothing more than a common courtesy. Basically, If you had
thoroughly read and studied the .65R and the AIM, this question would
be a non-issue. To new students, yes, but with the number of posts here
that you have, it is understood that you are not a student, nor have
the experience to back up what you say or think is true with actual
fact.

>> In this case you are
>> asking about communication with ATC which for you is also composed of
>> simulation users who may or may not have received any formal training
>> and there is just no way of knowing if they are following the same rules
>> as the ATC that pilots have to deal with.
>
> As I've already explained: (1) many of the controllers in simulation
> are also controllers in real life; (2) controllers in simulation
> receive training very similar to that used in real life, and generally
> use the same reference materials (7110.65 in the U.S., and the AIM);
> and (3) my observations here come not only from simulation but also
> from listening to real ATC, and from transcripts of real ATC.

I will agree here. there are some controllers on VATSIM who are
in fact real world controllers. They (VATSIM) do use and adhere to the
same documentation and regulations that real world controllers do. Your
fault here, is that you've burst onto this scene saying that MSFS is
real, that VATSIM is real, and discredit everything else that is said
here, despite the fact that you have real pilots and controllers here.
Saying that to people who do this for a living isn't going to give you
any warm fuzzies in return. Your first impression for everyone in this
group was laughable, which is why it is hard for people to take what
you have to say as fact. Get what you give, reap what you sew.

> Here again, you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.
>
>> As you have said so many
>> times, you don't anything that is said on this group at face value,
>> therefor why should we?
>
> I don't know. Why should you?

See above on give/get.

>> Casey is just making it clear to anyone who
>> happens into this thread without knowing your background to be wary of
>> anything you say as it's likely to be wrong.
>
> You haven't explained why anything I say is likely to be wrong.

RTFM. You'll see why what you're saying is wrong. Sure, pilots
may say it, but it does not make what pilots say RIGHT. Pilots for the
most can say what anything they want, as long as they adhere to what
they are required to read back, FARs, and other regs. Once again, that
documentation stating that has been available for YEARS. A simple read
of those would have made this entire thread a non-issue.

> Frankly, I'm amazed at how clueless many so-called pilots are here.
> They argue ceaselessly with each other, and in many cases all of the
> "pilots" arguing are wrong--nobody has the right answer. Sometimes
> nobody has _any_ answer, just speculation and argument.

You have been blissfully ignorant that they are arguing with
YOU, not other pilots here. Once again, you've barged into here with
the "I'm right, you all are wrong" attitude, and think that the world
is going to stop and listen to you? Pilots and ATC here know the
answers to the questions you have. Hell, some non-pilots and non-ATC
here already know the answers to the questions you have. They've gone
beyond their beck and call to give you those answers, and you've
slapped them all in the face by not believing their answers, or looking
at the documentation they suggest to see the facts in black and white.
They have the experience, while you do not. They have the knowledge,
while you do not. They've spent countless hours learning, studying,
paying fees, testing, the entire gambit to get where they are and know
what they know, while you do and have not. Because of them knowing what
they do, presenting their knowledge and experience to you, and you
throwing that away, they know that answering you is a lost cause.

So you think they don't have any answers? They do. They're just
tired of trying to answer you.

> It's puzzling because, on the one hand, it seems that the requirements
> for becoming a pilot are fairly rigorous, and yet, on the other hand,
> many people who claim to be pilots are severely misinformed.
>

Pot. Kettle. Black.

BL.

P.S. I would love to see you and Steven McNicoll throw down.
that would be a riot. Perhaps Jay or Sam S. could play Judge Mills Lane
as the referee.

- --
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)

iD8DBQFFx5qNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtWTAJ9W3KuuWIVZ4n+mp4HlND TKPnOH3ACfTKkg
jTxHek8djc7vLlDNV1V2aJE=
=jj7n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

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

Mxsmanic writes:

> Newps writes:
>
> > Exactly. Playing.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.

No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRcecshv8knkS0DI6EQIoAACfenfhBDeH0o3u287qLqHSa7 vgoIAAoJKB
Gn2QgZHruCAzPtK9KwSpXNrg
=LCOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic drooled:
>
> Mxsmanic writes:
>
>
>>Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I said.
>
>
> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.

Doesn't matter to us.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> That does not change the fact that this is a newsgroup aimed at real
> piloting not sims.

Simulation is also aimed at real piloting. That's why it's called
simulation.

> You posting here is no different than I posting to a group that is for RV
> builders with questions and comments about my 601XL.

Is there someone in that group who is trying to tell you not to post
there?

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

[Mxsmanic]

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

Mxsmanic writes:

> Newps writes:
>
> > Exactly. Playing.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.

No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBRcecshv8knkS0DI6EQIoAACfenfhBDeH0o3u287qLqHSa7 vgoIAAoJKB
Gn2QgZHruCAzPtK9KwSpXNrg
=LCOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:


> Mxsmanic writes:
>
>
>>Newps writes:
>>
>>
>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>
>>Yes, that's what I said.
>
>
> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.


The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
accomplished.

[Jim Logajan]

Newps > wrote:
> Doesn't matter to us.

Who's "us"?

[Morgans]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Crash Lander wrote:
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Toilet.
>>
>> Sausage.
>
>
> Which came first?

Sounds like we are starting to talk about breakfast, to me! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Duncan (NZ)" > wrote

> Ground controllers - w' the exception of taxi intructions, typically
> we'd read that back. Otherwise an acknowlegement is fine.
>
> Advisory service, ie, Information, you'd just read back the QNH.
>
> Tower and Control - you copy back the lot (they wanna know you've got it
> right).

Interesting. I had no idea that there were that many differences.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"John Theune" > wrote

> Casey is just making it clear to anyone who
> happens into this thread without knowing your background to be wary of
> anything you say as it's likely to be wrong.

Likely to be wrong?

LIKELY TO BE WRONG ? ? ?

THAT qualifies as the understatement of the century!!! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> P.S.: On a much lighter note, an old friend swears up and down that you
> can
> prevent a recently dropped soda can from fizzing over by inverting it and
> rapping it once, sharply on a firm surface--such as the floor or a table.
> From time to time, he asks if I've tried it; and I claim that didn't drop
> a
> soda for a while and then forgot. This ritual has continued for years.

Funny!

You can "knock the fizz back down" by tapping on the top with your
fingernails, or another small object, 10 or 15 times.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> That does not change the fact that this is a newsgroup aimed at real
>> piloting not sims.
>
> Simulation is also aimed at real piloting. That's why it's called
> simulation.

Simulating is simulating. There is a newsgroup for it.

>
>> You posting here is no different than I posting to a group that is
>> for RV builders with questions and comments about my 601XL.
>
> Is there someone in that group who is trying to tell you not to post
> there?

No because I'm not enough of an asshole to post there.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Doesn't matter to us.

You speak for yourself only.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
> accomplished.

A perfect simulation would still have a valid digital signature.

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

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
<...>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was forged.
>
> Doesn't matter to us.

You are now on the REAL troll's side?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Simulating is simulating.

I'm glad you've cleared up that tautology.

> There is a newsgroup for it.

I'm aware of this.

> No because I'm not enough of an asshole to post there.

Well, you're making rapid progress, so perhaps you'll be able to try
again soon.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:36:23 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>> Mxsmanic writes:
>>
>>
>>>Newps writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Exactly. Playing.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's what I said.
>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I said. The referenced post was simulated.
>
>
>The goal of simulation is to perfectly simulate reality. Mission
>accomplished.

Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.
There for no simulation can be perfect as it'd no longer be a
simulation.

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

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.

[Newps]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Thanks- I also coach and play hockey as well as fly.
>

Alllllright! I'm a referee, used to coach and my son is a junior in
high school and plays for his school. I can't be bothered on Friday and
Saturday nights if the Gophers are on.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> P.S. I would love to see you and Steven McNicoll throw down.
> that would be a riot. Perhaps Jay or Sam S. could play Judge Mills Lane
> as the referee.

I wouldn't want to see it, but my money would be on Steven.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 6, 10:58 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Duncan (NZ)" > wrote
>
> > Ground controllers - w' the exception of taxi intructions, typically
> > we'd read that back. Otherwise an acknowlegement is fine.
>
> > Advisory service, ie, Information, you'd just read back the QNH.
>
> > Tower and Control - you copy back the lot (they wanna know you've got it
> > right).
>
> Interesting. I had no idea that there were that many differences.
> --
> Jim in NC

I had no idea either!!! I guess with us being on the other side of
the world, we have developed different ways of doing some things...

There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
this - our flight levels start at 13,000 feet versus 18000 in the
US.. It is 18000, right??

And we use the English Q codes and the US doesn't.. We use QNH for
our altimeter setting, and QFE for altimeter setting that makes the
field elevation zero.

And I am sure there are other differences..

And of course our runways are generally a lot shorter and mostly
grass, which can be tricky if you are used to long sealed runways..

[chris[_1_]]

> > Which is what we are supposed to do, although I have been for a very
> > scary flight in a Cherokee Charger at Raglan where the dude made no
> > radio calls the whole trip, did no run-up, climbed with the stall
> > warning lit up the whole way up, on a very very rough day, did his
> > circuit the wrong direction, then slammed it on the runway and skidded
> > sideways to a stop. I think he was quite pleased with himself..
>
> Don't worry, the same thing happens at Wigram too - in fact there's a
> dude there that's gonna get his arse busted one day by CAA (someone will
> complain), or... he'll take someone out. When *he* wants to fly, he
> just cranks it up and rolls away (no runway req'd! :) - just nails it.
>

Everywhere you go there has to be a cowboy doesn't there!

One of our (former) club members got busted once for doing a loop in a
172.. Within sight of the airfield!!

And my favourite one was the Indian taxi driver who owned a light
aircraft of some description here a few years back... A couple of
weeks after he was seen taxiing in with two small children sitting in
the cargo area, he had some engine problems after coming back from
maintenance. Apparently it sounded like he was trying to clear a
fouled plug but when our chief looked up he was taking off.. With an
engine running rough. He dragged it's arse over the fence and it
settled into a paddock on the other side of the main road.. And he
had to pick the only field with stuff in it from dozens of clear
ones.. Wrote the plane off didn't he... And he had such a bad
reputation nobody would give him a rating on the Cherokee 140 he
bought to replace it.

And then he came to the maintenance shop I worked at and had several
thousand dollars of work done on the 140, and didn't pay the bill
until they took him to debt collection a year later...

Oh, he was the same guy who's original plane had a CSU, and when he
dropped in one day he admitted he had no idea what the blue lever did,
he just kept it pushed fully forward :)

He is the sort of pilot who gives the lot of us a bad name!

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.

It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by plane
rather than drive.

Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.

[Jay Beckman]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>
> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
> games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
> to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
> distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by
> plane rather than drive.
>
> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.
>

Since no one is allowed to hit them anymore, make him a goaltender.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Roger writes:

> Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.

Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.

In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.

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

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Roger writes:
>
>
>>Welll... a simulation is never perfect. If it were it'd be reality.
>
>
> Correct. Simulation approaches but does not attain this objective.
> In practice, simulation can be perfect for a given subset of the
> reality to be simulated, but not for all of it. Thus, you can have a
> simulator that perfectly simulates some (possibly large) subset of the
> reality of flying, but no simulator covers everything. The usual goal
> is to create a simulation that covers a subset useful for the purpose
> for which the simulation is being used. For example, an
> instrument-flight simulator may perfectly simulate the behavior of
> instruments, and this may fulfill the purpose of the simulator, even
> though other aspects of the reality of flying are not simulated.
>
> In general, many aspects of reality are not worth simulating, and some
> are even undesirable in some cases. For example, you would not design
> a simulator that kills the pilot in the event of a simulated crash.
>
Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
simulator crash?

Rip

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>If you
>>understand that sims and real life are two different things then why do you
>>insist on posting questions about sims here when there is a perfectly good
>>flight sim newsgroup?
>
>
> The goal of simulation is to precisely duplicate real life. Therefore
> questions about real life are relevant to simulation (whereas the
> converse is not necessarily true).
>
Anthony, you've almost, but NOT QUITE, passed the Turing Test. A few
more neural networks and you'll be up to human capacity at all levels.

Rip

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
> simulator crash?

One of the key advantages of simulation is that undesirable aspects of
the real world can be left out. There would be little advantage to
simulation as a training tool if mistakes left the pilot dead.

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

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Doesn't matter to us.
>
>
> You speak for yourself only.
>
BAAAAAAP! (Application of 50 joules at delta Tau = 1 msec through
joystick, sticky with erzatz human effluvia).
Incorrect assumption, Anthony!
Error, Error, Error!!!
He speaks also for me.

Rip

[Newps]

I don't fly to any of the away games. That almost never works.
Weather's too crappy and you need a car anyways at the other end. Not
much of a transition moving up, the kids handle it fine. Where are you
located?




Viperdoc wrote:
> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>
> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to two
> games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try to fly
> to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going to the
> distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute by plane
> rather than drive.
>
> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Rip writes:

> He speaks also for me.

If that were true, you wouldn't be saying this.

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

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rip writes:
>
>> He speaks also for me.
>
> If that were true, you wouldn't be saying this.

Score 1 for Mxsmanic (it got a chuckle out of me, anyway).

[Thomas Borchert]

Chris,

> There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
> this -

Worldwide, there's a ton.

> our flight levels start at 13,000 feet versus 18000 in the
> US.. It is 18000, right??

Ours start at 5000 feetin Germany. And coming back down, the transition
level is given by ATC, depending on QNH (err, altimeter setting). It is
either FL60,70 or 80, whichever is closest to, but above 5000 feet.

> And we use the English Q codes and the US doesn't.. We use QNH for
> our altimeter setting, and QFE for altimeter setting that makes the
> field elevation zero.

Not only that, we also use SI units for that, IOW Hectopascal, not
inches Hg.

In Russia, IIRC they still use meters for altitude.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 6, 10:04 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
> > this -
>
> Worldwide, there's a ton.

I am starting to realise that! How does someone get on going across
Europe? I presume it's only the French who actively dislike speaking
English on the radio, but there's gotta be lots of traps for young
players...

>
> > our flight levels start at 13,000 feet versus 18000 in the
> > US.. It is 18000, right??
>
> Ours start at 5000 feetin Germany. And coming back down, the transition
> level is given by ATC, depending on QNH (err, altimeter setting). It is
> either FL60,70 or 80, whichever is closest to, but above 5000 feet.

Wow, that's low - not many mountains there, right??


>
> > And we use the English Q codes and the US doesn't.. We use QNH for
> > our altimeter setting, and QFE for altimeter setting that makes the
> > field elevation zero.
>
> Not only that, we also use SI units for that, IOW Hectopascal, not
> inches Hg.

Our units are all mixed up - we use knots for speed, feet for
altitude, but metres for runway length and visibility and as you
pointed out, hectopascals for QNH. Although at least one of our club
planes has a dual scale altimeter. Not terribly useful here, but there
you go!

This country is also a bit different geographically - at a lot of
places, especially in the North island, you can see from one side to
the other at quite a low altitude.. Hard to get lost, all you gotta
do is head east or west and you can follow the coast home..
And thats why our cruising levels are designated north/south as
opposed to the east/west of other countries.
Oh, and the air is nice and clean here, an average day is 50km vis,
I've seen it as high as 100km! Makes it easy to go somewhere with a
landmark like a mountain, you can see it an hour before you get to
it!!!


>
> In Russia, IIRC they still use meters for altitude.

Yep, so all those Yak 52's that are now coming into this country all
have screwy instruments..

>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

My son plays in WAHA (I think it stands for Wisconsin amateur hockey
association) as a second year squirt in the Elm Brook program. I am the
level director and one of the assistant coaches for his team.

Flying to tournaments works for us, since my wife generally drives, and I
fly up for the games. I have a lot of other responsibilities related to work
and the Air Force, so this gives me more time to get other stuff done on the
weekends, as well as an opportunity to fly. Who could ask for more?

Last night we were trying to teach the defense to cut off the player coming
out of the offensive zone without drawing an interference penalty- it's
tough to make a play on the puck and cut the player off as well and make it
look like they were just playing the puck.

I tried to get the kids to turn toward the player coming out of the zone,
and not the puck. Do you have any input on this move from the ref's
perspective?
"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>I don't fly to any of the away games. That almost never works. Weather's
>too crappy and you need a car anyways at the other end. Not much of a
>transition moving up, the kids handle it fine. Where are you located?
>
>
>
>
> Viperdoc wrote:
>> Just got back from practice- my son is a squirt, and I'm one of the
>> assistant coaches. We have play downs this weekend (do these sound
>> familiar?), but unfortunately I'll be in San Diego for a meeting.
>>
>> It was actually warmer inside the rink than outside tonight, with the OAT
>> hovering at -4degrees. With two to three practices and at least one to
>> two games on the weekends it cuts into the flying time. However, we try
>> to fly to his games, even if it's only a 15 minute ride. Of course going
>> to the distant tournaments really becomes more fun- and I usually commute
>> by plane rather than drive.
>>
>> Was it a big transition going from squirt to checking? My son isn't very
>> big, so I'm concerned about him getting crushed.

[Thomas Borchert]

Chris,

> How does someone get on going across
> Europe?
>

Well, educate yourself ;-)

For example, most European countries have the standard VFR squawk of
7000 (not 1200, as in the US). Germany used to have 0021 below 5000 and
0022 above. They are now changing that to 7000 to "harmonize".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 7, 5:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > How does someone get on going across
> > Europe?
>
> Well, educate yourself ;-)
>
> For example, most European countries have the standard VFR squawk of
> 7000 (not 1200, as in the US). Germany used to have 0021 below 5000 and
> 0022 above. They are now changing that to 7000 to "harmonize".
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Interesting... Here's it's 1200, like the US..

But at my local airfield, which is actually a small international
airport, we use 2200 if we're in the circuit, so the controllers can
switch us off their radar...

[F. Reid]

On Feb 4, 6:41 pm, Dave > wrote:
> Correct.....
>
> Mx is a sim pilot, - but he has the right idea most of the time,
> and stays civil _all the time_.

Not true, he masqueraded as a jet pilot on another thread and he was
not very civil about it.
>
> Mx HAS MADE IT CLEAR he has not flown a plane as PIC.

Not the case on other threads Dave.If MX is asking questions and
started threads, he could probably make it clear that he is not going
to actually use the information, and he is only asking in a retorical
sense.
>
> So... should we ASSUME everybody else posting here HAS flown as PIC in
> a REAL plane?

Good point, but on the other hand, if a person tries to pass himself
as experienced and he isnt, doent that just waste his and everone
elses time?Could he find more constructive uses for his time.
>
> I don't, and I take serious pause when I read some of the stuff posted
> here....

His posts do gererate some funny jokes, Ill give him credit there.
>
> This IS usenet..
>
> YMMV....
>
> Dave
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 4, 10:36 pm, "alice" > wrote:
> > If your takeoff clearance includes "no delay" due to landing traffic
> > behind you, then the "rolling" information could be of some use to the
> > controller. However, this is not something that is widely used. I
> > suspect it is because the controller cannot simply rely on your
> > transmission for his decision to issue a landing clearance.
>
> Thats a good guess Andy.Did anyone ask what you "Suspect".Are you a
> pilot?

That's public record. I don't post under an anonymous handle.

[F. Reid]

On Feb 6, 4:34 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> > Thats a good guess Andy.Did anyone ask what you "Suspect".Are you a
> > pilot?
>
> That's public record. I don't post under an anonymous handle.

Whats public record? Are we supposed to look it up.What is wrong with
just admitting you are an aviation enthusiast who doesnt actualy fly ?
I think there are more than a few of these on this list.If anything
you should be like MX and make jokes about it instead of being
defensive and condisending.
F. Reid

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "F. Reid" > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:34 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> > > Thats a good guess Andy.Did anyone ask what you "Suspect".Are you a
> > > pilot?
>
> > That's public record. I don't post under an anonymous handle.
>
> Whats public record? Are we supposed to look it up.What is wrong with
> just admitting you are an aviation enthusiast who doesnt actualy fly ?
> I think there are more than a few of these on this list.If anything
> you should be like MX and make jokes about it instead of being
> defensive and condisending.
> F. Reid

Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
pilots. Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,
and anyone who is interested can verify in just two clicks. It is
funny that the people who take issue with these are the ones hiding
behind fake names.

[F. Reid]

On Feb 6, 8:47 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

>
> Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
> alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
> pilots.

I read what you posted to Alice, and you really owe her an apology.You
claimed that anyone who disagreed with you needed to "Go back to the
basics".Do you treat your students like this?

Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,

Come on dude, I have read some of your other posts and you have
several basic concepts completely backwards.There is no way you are a
CFI much less a rated pilot.Like I said before, there is nothing wrong
with a non flying enthusiast on this list.Just be honest.
FR

[John Theune]

F. Reid wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:47 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>> Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
>> alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
>> pilots.
>
> I read what you posted to Alice, and you really owe her an apology.You
> claimed that anyone who disagreed with you needed to "Go back to the
> basics".Do you treat your students like this?
>
> Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,
>
> Come on dude, I have read some of your other posts and you have
> several basic concepts completely backwards.There is no way you are a
> CFI much less a rated pilot.Like I said before, there is nothing wrong
> with a non flying enthusiast on this list.Just be honest.
> FR
>
>
>
>
>
>
and 10 seconds looking at the databases on www.landings.com shows that
there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.

[F. Reid]

On Feb 6, 9:46 pm, John Theune > wrote:
>
> and 10 seconds looking at the databases onwww.landings.comshows that
> there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.- Hide quoted text -
>
John, how can a guy claim these credits and not understand the basics?
And why would he be trolling on these lists?Seems hard to imagine.Is
he using the handle of a person he doesnt like?

[F. Reid]

On Feb 6, 9:46 pm, John Theune > wrote:
> F. Reid wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 8:47 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> >> Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
> >> alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
> >> pilots.
>
> > I read what you posted to Alice, and you really owe her an apology.You
> > claimed that anyone who disagreed with you needed to "Go back to the
> > basics".Do you treat your students like this?
>
> > Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,
>
> > Come on dude, I have read some of your other posts and you have
> > several basic concepts completely backwards.There is no way you are a
> > CFI much less a rated pilot.Like I said before, there is nothing wrong
> > with a non flying enthusiast on this list.Just be honest.
> > FR
>
> and 10 seconds looking at the databases onwww.landings.comshows that
> there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

John,
Just for reference, I looked up mine and several buddies names and
only a few were listed.Not terribly accurate.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

F. Reid wrote:
> Just for reference, I looked up mine and several buddies names and
> only a few were listed.Not terribly accurate.



I don't know. My real name is there, along with an accurate listing of my
certificates and when my medical is going to expire.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 10:58 am, "chris" > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:04 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
>
> > > There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
> > > this -
>
> > Worldwide, there's a ton.
>
> I am starting to realise that! How does someone get on going across
> Europe? I presume it's only the French who actively dislike speaking
> English on the radio, but there's gotta be lots of traps for young
> players...

Not just the French ;-)
To be honest the French are OK when it comes to flying there.
And it is not their dislike for English, most of them just never have
learned it.
In real life it is not much of a problem. French FIS and most of their
large airfields are both French and English.
Only small fields are French only.

Germans do the same.
I can understand German RT well unless somebody from Austria,
Switzerland or even Bavaria calls in and doing their version of
German.

And there is English and English, ever heard pilots from Scotland or
Wales?

-Kees

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 7, 10:31 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:58 am, "chris" > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 10:04 pm, Thomas Borchert >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Chris,
>
> > > > There's a couple of other differences that spring to mind as I type
> > > > this -
>
> > > Worldwide, there's a ton.
>
> > I am starting to realise that! How does someone get on going across
> > Europe? I presume it's only the French who actively dislike speaking
> > English on the radio, but there's gotta be lots of traps for young
> > players...
>
> Not just the French ;-)
> To be honest the French are OK when it comes to flying there.
> And it is not their dislike for English, most of them just never have
> learned it.
> In real life it is not much of a problem. French FIS and most of their
> large airfields are both French and English.
> Only small fields are French only.
>
> Germans do the same.
> I can understand German RT well unless somebody from Austria,
> Switzerland or even Bavaria calls in and doing their version of
> German.
>
> And there is English and English, ever heard pilots from Scotland or
> Wales?
>
> -Kees

We did have amusing times with an Irish pilot with a very thick accent
trying to communicate with a Fijian Indian controller, who was also
trying to communicate with Chinese student pilots fresh over from
China who were learning to fly to go home for an airline job...

[Thomas Borchert]

> And there is English and English, ever heard pilots from Scotland or
> Wales?
>

Texas?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 11:25 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > And there is English and English, ever heard pilots from Scotland or
> > Wales?
>
> Texas?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Nope, not yet.

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> and 10 seconds looking at the databases on www.landings.com shows that
> there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.

Unfortunately, there is no way to prove that a person in those databases is
also a person who posts here.

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

[Mxsmanic]

John Theune writes:

> and 10 seconds looking at the databases on www.landings.com shows that
> there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.

A bit longer spent with the real database--that of the Federal Aviation
Administration--reveals the same thing.

However, the fact that such a person exists does not mean that the posts
bearing his name were actually written by him. That is usually impossible to
prove or disprove.

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

[Mxsmanic]

F. Reid writes:

> John, how can a guy claim these credits and not understand the basics?

In other words, you disagree with him. That doesn't mean that he lacks the
credentials he claims, nor does it make him unqualified.

To be a pilot, instructor, etc., you need only pass certain tests. You don't
have to be an expert in aviation. Credentials do not equal qualifications,
and vice versa.

> And why would he be trolling on these lists?

"Trolling" is so overused that it really doesn't mean anything any more.
Nobody is trolling on this list that I can see. Disagreeing with your point
of view is not trolling.

> Seems hard to imagine.

No doubt because it is so incongruent with the obvious reality.

> Is he using the handle of a person he doesnt like?

Or is he just expressing an opinion that you don't like?

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

[F. Reid]

On Feb 7, 4:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In other words, you disagree with him. That doesn't mean that he lacks the
> credentials he claims, nor does it make him unqualified.

Actually, he disagreed with someone else and claimed THEY were not
qualified.If someone disagrees with me that doesnt make them
unqualified, it makes them smart.;)
>
> To be a pilot, instructor, etc., you need only pass certain tests. You don't
> have to be an expert in aviation. Credentials do not equal qualifications,
> and vice versa.
Actually, instructors are in fact sky gods.They are all knowing and
all telling pillars of the aviation community.They are men among men
(even the females).All kidding aside, you would expect a person to
have a certain level of knowlege for a certain level of ratings.
>
>
> "Trolling" is so overused that it really doesn't mean anything any more.
> Nobody is trolling on this list that I can see. Disagreeing with your point
> of view is not trolling.
>
Good point.And this is exactly MY point.If AS disagrees with someone,
he could stand to be a bit civil.Also, the guy shouldnt debate topics
he does not have a grasp of.Kind of like what you did a few threads
ago.
>
> No doubt because it is so incongruent with the obvious reality.
>
Incongruent?I dont know what that means.Dont use big words with me.
>
> Or is he just expressing an opinion that you don't like?
>
Or in this case he is calling other peoples credentals into
question.Thats an opinion I could do without.
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[F. Reid]

On Feb 7, 4:29 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > and 10 seconds looking at the databases onwww.landings.comshows that
> > there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no way to prove that a person in those databases is
> also a person who posts here.
>
Good point.In an effort to respect the guy's privacy I havent looked
it up anways.

[John Theune]

F. Reid wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:46 pm, John Theune > wrote:
>> F. Reid wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 8:47 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>>>> Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
>>>> alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
>>>> pilots.
>>> I read what you posted to Alice, and you really owe her an apology.You
>>> claimed that anyone who disagreed with you needed to "Go back to the
>>> basics".Do you treat your students like this?
>>> Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,
>>> Come on dude, I have read some of your other posts and you have
>>> several basic concepts completely backwards.There is no way you are a
>>> CFI much less a rated pilot.Like I said before, there is nothing wrong
>>> with a non flying enthusiast on this list.Just be honest.
>>> FR
>> and 10 seconds looking at the databases onwww.landings.comshows that
>> there is a person named andrew sarangan with all the credentials he claims.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> John,
> Just for reference, I looked up mine and several buddies names and
> only a few were listed.Not terribly accurate.
>
You can opt-out of the listings and they don't appear instantly.

[Mxsmanic]

F. Reid writes:

> Actually, instructors are in fact sky gods.They are all knowing and
> all telling pillars of the aviation community.They are men among men
> (even the females).All kidding aside, you would expect a person to
> have a certain level of knowlege for a certain level of ratings.

Maybe. But people can forget, and they can also know exactly what's required
to pass the tests, and nothing more.

I don't know if it is the real person or not; I'm just pointing out the
possibilities, and the fact that one cannot be certain of anything on USENET.

> Good point.And this is exactly MY point.If AS disagrees with someone,
> he could stand to be a bit civil. Also, the guy shouldnt debate topics
> he does not have a grasp of. Kind of like what you did a few threads
> ago.

I always have a grasp of the topics I debate, although I may not necessarily
be an expert. When I don't know, I ask questions. However, I don't accept
answers at face value, since experience has taught me the danger of this, and
sometimes people get upset when they answer and their answers are not treated
as gospel.

> Incongruent?I dont know what that means.Dont use big words with me.

Incongruent with reality means that it doesn't match up with reality.

> Or in this case he is calling other peoples credentals into
> question. Thats an opinion I could do without.

Credentials are often so useless for establishing a person's qualifications
that I don't think that questioning them really makes much difference. Anyone
willfully naive enough or lazy enough to rely on credentials alone when
looking for authoritative sources will pretty much get what he deserves.

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

[Mxsmanic]

F. Reid writes:

> Good point.In an effort to respect the guy's privacy I havent looked
> it up anways.

I had to provide my personal information to look it up, so getting his
personal information was a fairly even trade. Of course, I wouldn't republish
the information outside of the database (if others want to know, they can
provide their personal information to get it, too).

I suppose the FAA might keep a log of people who make queries on their
database, looking up pilots' certifications, but I have no quarrel with that,
given what the database contains.

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

[Barney Rubble]

Nope he speaks for me as well, we conversed beforehand, so"us" is correct.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> Doesn't matter to us.
>
> You speak for yourself only.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> Nope he speaks for me as well, we conversed beforehand, so"us" is correct.

Then why are you posting this?

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

[dlevy]

I don't know why but that is funny.

"Rip" > wrote in message
...
> Anthony, why would it be undesirable were you to kill yourself in a
> simulator crash?
>
> Rip

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 6, 11:22 pm, "F. Reid" > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:47 pm, "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems this thread has degraded. First it was MX, then someone named
> > alice who goes around claiming anyone he disagrees with are not real
> > pilots.
>
> I read what you posted to Alice, and you really owe her an apology.You
> claimed that anyone who disagreed with you needed to "Go back to the
> basics".Do you treat your students like this?

You are right. I do owe an apology to alice for saying that she "had
to go back to the basics". Stuff happens, and discussions do sometimes
get out of control. I was defending John Denker's book, not myself.
However, my comment was uncalled for. So here is my sincere apology
for that statement.

Most of us in this group don't come here because we have too much
spare time. I am here only because I learn something new from these
discussions. In that spirit, I am still eager to find out what is so
wrong with Denker's book. The comments that ' the book is free only
because no one would pay for it' is a serious defamation of a
professional author who has been generous with his work. I don't need
an apology for it because it is not my book. However, if there is
indeed a serious flaw, it would be beneficial for all of us to know
the specifics.

You too felt the need to make broad accusations that 'several of my
basic concepts were completely backwards' and that 'I can't possibly
be a CFI much less a pilot'. Those are very broad and nonspecific that
I can't defend them nor use them in any constructive manner.



>
> Yes, I am a real pilot, flight instructor and an enthusiast,
>
> Come on dude, I have read some of your other posts and you have
> several basic concepts completely backwards.There is no way you are a
> CFI much less a rated pilot.Like I said before, there is nothing wrong
> with a non flying enthusiast on this list.Just be honest.
> FR