Near miss from space junk.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=24657

Flaming space junk narrowly misses jet

28th March 2007, 11:15 WST


Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit narrowly
missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.


The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between Santiago,
Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic controllers at
Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk hurtling across the
sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane about 10pm
last night.

According to a plane spotter, who was tuning into a high frequency radio
broadcast at the time, the pilot "reported that the rumbling noise from the
space debris could be heard over the noise of the aircraft.

More at link above.

[Dan Luke]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

>
> The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between
> Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic
> controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk
> hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his
> plane about 10pm last night.

How did he see stuff behind him?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:52:49 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit narrowly
>missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.

So would the Russians been culpable for downing the Chilean airliner
if their "Russian Roulette" flight had been impacted by the Russian
space debris?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:52:49 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit
>> narrowly missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.
>
> So would the Russians been culpable for downing the Chilean airliner
> if their "Russian Roulette" flight had been impacted by the Russian
> space debris?

Probably, since they quoted a different de-orbit time than really happened.

[Shirl]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
> > The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between
> > Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic
> > controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk
> > hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his
> > plane about 10pm last night.

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> How did he see stuff behind him?

In his rear view mirror, of course!
;-)

[RomeoMike]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between Santiago,
> Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic controllers at
> Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk hurtling across the
> sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane about 10pm
> last night.

How does he know how far away it was? Does the Airbus have radar that
would measure the distance? It would be impossible to tell visually.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

RomeoMike wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between
>> Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic
>> controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space
>> junk hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of
>> and behind his plane about 10pm last night.
>
> How does he know how far away it was? Does the Airbus have radar that
> would measure the distance? It would be impossible to tell visually.

Maybe he timed the difference from when he saw it and when he heard it. Hell
I don't know I'm just passing the story along.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> RomeoMike wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between
>>> Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic
>>> controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space
>>> junk hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of
>>> and behind his plane about 10pm last night.
>>
>> How does he know how far away it was? Does the Airbus have radar that
>> would measure the distance? It would be impossible to tell visually.
>
> Maybe he timed the difference from when he saw it and when he heard it.
> Hell I don't know I'm just passing the story along.
>

Those things are so fully equipped these days, he might have seen it on his
radar, or perhaps a collision avoidance system, hard to say. They may even
be able to replay the collision avoidance and radar data now days. I would
think some collision avoidance could be targeted aft. It would be
interesting to know.

Got any airline pilots out there anywhere? In the things I fly you are lucky
to have gps, unless you bring your own.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:52:49 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit narrowly
>>missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.
>
> So would the Russians been culpable for downing the Chilean airliner
> if their "Russian Roulette" flight had been impacted by the Russian
> space debris?
>

Yes, that was decided by treaty some time ago - your country launches it,
you are responsible for what it does.

But, five miles = "narrowly missed"????????

--
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.

[Jose]

> But, five miles = "narrowly missed"????????

For outer space? Yes.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**]

Rear view mirror?

Dan Luke wrote:

>"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>
>
>>The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340, which was travelling between
>>Santiago, Chile, and Auckland, New Zealand, notified air traffic
>>controllers at Auckland Oceanic Centre after seeing flaming space junk
>>hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his
>>plane about 10pm last night.
>>
>>
>
>How did he see stuff behind him?
>
>
>

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> How did he see stuff behind him?
>
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM

Would it have come up on TCAS?
Crash Lander

[Jose]

> Not to be picky, but... How was the distance measured?

With a ruler?

I don't know how (or whether) the distance was measured, or whether it
was calculated after the fact.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Galban]

On Mar 28, 2:05 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
> Those things are so fully equipped these days, he might have seen it on his
> radar, or perhaps a collision avoidance system, hard to say. They may even
> be able to replay the collision avoidance and radar data now days. I would
> think some collision avoidance could be targeted aft. It would be
> interesting to know.
>
> Got any airline pilots out there anywhere? In the things I fly you are lucky
> to have gps, unless you bring your own.

I'm not an airline pilot, but I know that TCAS (collision avoidance)
only works with transponder equipped traffic. It's unlikely that the
burning space junk was so equipped. Something like space junk
wouldn't likely show up on the weather radar either.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Peter Dohm]

> > But, five miles = "narrowly missed"????????
>
> For outer space? Yes.
>
Not to be picky, but... How was the distance measured?

[[email protected]]

Google found this report

By Emma O'Brien

March 29 (Bloomberg) -- A Lan Airlines SA aircraft flying over the
Pacific Ocean on its way to New Zealand came within 40 seconds of
being hit by a debris from a falling Russian satellite, the Dominion
Post said, citing aviation authorities.

The pilot of the Chilean plane, which was traveling to Auckland from
Santiago on March 27, alerted Auckland air traffic controllers after
he saw a flaming pieces of space junk fall 10 kilometers (6.2 miles)
in front of and behind the aircraft, the newspaper said.

The material came from a Russian satellite that was being dumped back
to earth 12 hours ahead of schedule, according to the Post. Airways
New Zealand, which provides air navigation services, was warned a
satellite would fall to earth some time on March 28, the newspaper
said.

New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority will investigate the incident,
the newspaper said, citing communications manager Bill Sommer. Lan
Airlines declined to comment on the incident when contacted yesterday,
according to the Post.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit
> narrowly missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.

""On Christmas eve," said NORAD, "a Soviet Sputnik hit Africa."
India, Venezuela.
Texas, Kansas.
It's falling fast.
Peru, too.
It keeps coming.
It keeps coming.
It keeps coming...
And now I'm mad about space junk."

Matt Roberds

[Peter Dohm]

> > Not to be picky, but... How was the distance measured?
>
> With a ruler?
>

:-)))

[Richard]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=24657
>
>
> Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit narrowly
> missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.
>

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10431449

"However, Nasa said today it was convinced the flaming objects were not from
a satellite and space experts said it could have been a meteor."

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-03-28, Crash Lander > wrote:
> Would it have come up on TCAS?
> Crash Lander

Only if they fitted a transponder to the space junk!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Oz Lander[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-03-28, Crash Lander > wrote:
> > Would it have come up on TCAS?
> > Crash Lander
>
> Only if they fitted a transponder to the space junk!

OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar. You
learn something everyday! ;-)

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

Oz Lander writes:

> OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar.

TCAS I (the kind often used on small aircraft) reads Mode C replies from other
transponders and builds a picture of the airspace from that, with moderate
accuracy. TCAS II (the kind mandated on large aircraft) also listens to other
TCAS systems to build a much more accurate picture of the airspace (if lots of
other aircraft are similarly equipped).

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

[Ron Natalie]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How did he see stuff behind him?
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>> C-172RG at BFM
>
> Would it have come up on TCAS?
> Crash Lander
>
>
Not unless they've started putting transponders on the space junk.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Richard" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=24657
>>
>>
>> Pieces of space junk from a Russian satellite coming out of orbit
>> narrowly missed hitting a jetliner over the Pacific Ocean overnight.
>>
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10431449
>
> "However, Nasa said today it was convinced the flaming objects were
> not from a satellite and space experts said it could have been a
> meteor."
>

Phwaaawh1 You don't want to pay any attention to what the New Zealand
Herald says. They'r efull of crap! I know..


bertie

[Richard]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
>>
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10431449
>>
>> "However, Nasa said today it was convinced the flaming objects were
>> not from a satellite and space experts said it could have been a
>> meteor."
>>
>
> Phwaaawh1 You don't want to pay any attention to what the New Zealand
> Herald says. They'r efull of crap! I know..
>

Same story from Associated Press.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/28/backpage/3_28_0715_20_15.txt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Richard" > wrote in news:460bfe6e$1
@news.orcon.net.nz:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>>>
>>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=
10431449
>>>
>>> "However, Nasa said today it was convinced the flaming objects were
>>> not from a satellite and space experts said it could have been a
>>> meteor."
>>>
>>
>> Phwaaawh1 You don't want to pay any attention to what the New Zealand
>> Herald says. They'r efull of crap! I know..
>>
>
> Same story from Associated Press.

Mmm, OK. Actualy, I've been pretty close to space junk coming down
myself on a few occasions. the most spectaculaor was the first, over
central Africa. It was like a meteorite, except much slower and
incredibly bright. Glowed bright green and lit up the dusk sky to the
left of the airplane like a lightning bolt. No way of telling how far
away it was, but it was definitely much higher than we were when it
ended it's pyrotechnics. This was the brightest one I've seen, but I
have seen others. As I said, they look just like shooting stars, but
it's the obvious speed difference and length of the burn as well as the
weird colors that distinguishes them..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Oz Lander writes:
>
>> OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar.
>
> TCAS I (the kind often used on small aircraft) reads Mode C replies
> from other transponders and builds a picture of the airspace from
> that, with moderate accuracy. TCAS II (the kind mandated on large
> aircraft) also listens to other TCAS systems to build a much more
> accurate picture of the airspace (if lots of other aircraft are
> similarly equipped).

God you're clueless. you can't run into another computer unless you got
it straped to the hood of you 63 plymout valiant and hit your friend
with the same thing strapped to his rambler, wannavbe boi,


Bertie

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:44:02 -0600, RomeoMike wrote:

> How does he know how far away it was? Does the Airbus have radar that
> would measure the distance? It would be impossible to tell visually.

Pitch up and use the RADAR altimeter.

Whee!

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:35:59 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Mmm, OK. Actualy, I've been pretty close to space junk coming down myself
> on a few occasions.

I've occasionally been within a couple of planetary diameters of space
junk. Worrisome. I've heard what those astronauts use instead of toilets.

- Andrew

[chris[_1_]]

On Mar 29, 11:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Oz Lander writes:
> > OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar.
>
> TCAS I (the kind often used on small aircraft) reads Mode C replies from other
> transponders and builds a picture of the airspace from that, with moderate
> accuracy. TCAS II (the kind mandated on large aircraft) also listens to other
> TCAS systems to build a much more accurate picture of the airspace (if lots of
> other aircraft are similarly equipped).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
sure you got that right ???

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"chris" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Mar 29, 11:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Oz Lander writes:
>> > OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar.
>>
>> TCAS I (the kind often used on small aircraft) reads Mode C replies
>> from other transponders and builds a picture of the airspace from
>> that, with moderate accuracy. TCAS II (the kind mandated on large
>> aircraft) also listens to other TCAS systems to build a much more
>> accurate picture of the airspace (if lots of other aircraft are
>> similarly equipped).
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
> sure you got that right ???
>

It'd be a first if he did.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:35:59 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Mmm, OK. Actualy, I've been pretty close to space junk coming down
>> myself on a few occasions.
>
> I've occasionally been within a couple of planetary diameters of space
> junk. Worrisome. I've heard what those astronauts use instead of
> toilets.

oooohkaaay..


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
> sure you got that right ???

By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the type
usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is really present
very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual figures. Since good
avionics represent a substantial portion of the total cost of an aircraft, it
follows that one wouldn't see advanced avionics that often on aircraft that
are not otherwise very expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on
a $90,000 aircraft?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> chris writes:
>
>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
>> sure you got that right ???
>
> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the
> type usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is
> really present very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual
> figures. Since good avionics represent a substantial portion of the
> total cost of an aircraft, it follows that one wouldn't see advanced
> avionics that often on aircraft that are not otherwise very expensive.
> Who would install $2 million of avionics on a $90,000 aircraft?
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You're an idiot.

You're welcome.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> You're welcome.
>

I know


Bertie

[RST Engineering]

Bertie ...

You were absent from the group when we made a rather collective decision to
disregard maniac's postings. I'd appreciate it if you would join us.

Jim



"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "chris" > wrote in
> oups.com:


>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
>> sure you got that right ???
>>
>
> It'd be a first if he did.
>
> bertie

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Oz Lander writes:
>
>> OK, so TCAS reads transponder codes. I thought it was like a radar.
>
> TCAS I (the kind often used on small aircraft) reads Mode C replies from other
> transponders and builds a picture of the airspace from that, with moderate
> accuracy. TCAS II (the kind mandated on large aircraft) also listens to other
> TCAS systems to build a much more accurate picture of the airspace (if lots of
> other aircraft are similarly equipped).
>

As usual you are wrong again. Try not to base your entire world on your
fantasies and guesswork.

Very few GA aircraft have any sort of collision avoidance, and I've
never seen any with TCAS I. The few that are out there that are
transponder based like the Monroy, Zaon, Ryan TCAD, L3/Goodrich
Skywatch are all generic traffic avoidance systems. They Skywatch
and higher end Avidyne TAS systems can be installed as TCAS I.

The TCAS I will send interrogations and it will locate aircraft
with more than "moderate" accuracy. You're confusing the lesser
PCAS and other traffic avoidance systems with TCAS I.

The difference is that TCAS II units talk to other TCAS II
units via the mode S datalink to coordinate resolution of
conflicts.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Bertie ...
>
> You were absent from the group when we made a rather collective
> decision to disregard maniac's postings. I'd appreciate it if you
> would join us.
>

It's th eonly reason I'm here. Best to ignore mine as well. I'm not
morphing in here at all, nor do I plan to, so my e-mail address in your
kill file will make your life lots easier.

Bertie

[chris[_1_]]

On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
> > sure you got that right ???
>
> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the type
> usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is really present
> very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual figures. Since good
> avionics represent a substantial portion of the total cost of an aircraft, it
> follows that one wouldn't see advanced avionics that often on aircraft that
> are not otherwise very expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on
> a $90,000 aircraft?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
DME thrown in for good measure...

And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
do we need gauges for ???

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
> private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
> aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
> the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
> vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
> or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
> Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
> are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
> DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> do we need gauges for ???

All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics always work.

And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what else is it
skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
> > private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
> > aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
> > the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
> > vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
> > or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
> > Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
> > are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
> > DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> > gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> > like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> > placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > do we need gauges for ???
>
> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics always work.
>
> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what else is it
> skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
things I actually need definitely work.

And as far as maintenance goes, GA aircraft are required to have 100
hour checks, but we also do 50 hour checks and anything that needs
doing is put right or it doesn't go back into the air.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> chris writes:
>
>> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
>> where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
>> either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
>> Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
>> neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
>> alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
>> operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
>> horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and
>> that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>>
>> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
>> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
>> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
>> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
>> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
>> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is
>> 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we
>> know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight,
>> what do we need gauges for ???
>
> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics always
> work.

No they don't there aren't any avionics. and if you need them to fly,
your not a pilot anyway.

Fjukkwit.

>
> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what else
> is it skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.

Oh, what a contentious statement. Hope it doesn't upset anybody lameboi.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"chris" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Apr 2, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> chris writes:
>> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
>> > where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
>> > either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
>> > Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
>> > neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
>> > alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
>> > operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
>> > horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs
>> > and that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>>
>> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with
>> > IFR gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when
>> > things like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just
>> > get placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our
>> > club, only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just
>> > placarded u/s. And the only reason there are 4 planes that have
>> > gauges that work is 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with
>> > fuel gauges is, we know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip
>> > the tank on preflight, what do we need gauges for ???
>>
>> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics always
>> work.
>>
>> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what else
>> is it skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted text
>> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> things I actually need definitely work.
>
> And as far as maintenance goes, GA aircraft are required to have 100
> hour checks, but we also do 50 hour checks and anything that needs
> doing is put right or it doesn't go back into the air.

They're not, actually. only if they're for hire in the US. Otherwise,
only an annual is required.


Bertie

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 12:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> chris writes:
> >> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
> >> > where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
> >> > either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
> >> > Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
> >> > neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
> >> > alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
> >> > operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
> >> > horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs
> >> > and that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> >> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with
> >> > IFR gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when
> >> > things like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just
> >> > get placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our
> >> > club, only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just
> >> > placarded u/s. And the only reason there are 4 planes that have
> >> > gauges that work is 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with
> >> > fuel gauges is, we know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip
> >> > the tank on preflight, what do we need gauges for ???
>
> >> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics always
> >> work.
>
> >> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what else
> >> is it skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.
>
> >> --
> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted text
> >> -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> > things I actually need definitely work.
>
> > And as far as maintenance goes, GA aircraft are required to have 100
> > hour checks, but we also do 50 hour checks and anything that needs
> > doing is put right or it doesn't go back into the air.
>
> They're not, actually. only if they're for hire in the US. Otherwise,
> only an annual is required.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well I only speak from my experience here in NZ, but I am 99.9 % sure
it's 100hr/ARA as a minimum here. Other countires of course will be
different. I had a brief exposure to Aussie CASA maintenance rules
and regs and didn't like them one little bit, compared to NZ..

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"chris" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Apr 2, 12:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote
>> groups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> chris writes:
>> >> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
>> >> > where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c
>> >> > are either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial,
>> >> > like Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to
>> >> > get neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS,
>> >> > let alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some
>> >> > commercial operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd
>> >> > probably be horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of
>> >> > ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for
>> >> > good measure...
>>
>> >> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came
>> >> > with IFR gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero
>> >> > club, when things like DME and VOR break down they don't get
>> >> > fixed, they just get placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges.
>> >> > Of 9 planes at our club, only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The
>> >> > rest are just placarded u/s. And the only reason there are 4
>> >> > planes that have gauges that work is 3 of them are brand new
>> >> > a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know the fuel burn
>> >> > and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what do we
>> >> > need gauges for ???
>>
>> >> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics
>> >> always work.
>>
>> >> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what
>> >> else is it skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted
>> >> text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
>> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
>> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All
>> > the things I actually need definitely work.
>>
>> > And as far as maintenance goes, GA aircraft are required to have
>> > 100 hour checks, but we also do 50 hour checks and anything that
>> > needs doing is put right or it doesn't go back into the air.
>>
>> They're not, actually. only if they're for hire in the US. Otherwise,
>> only an annual is required.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well I only speak from my experience here in NZ, but I am 99.9 % sure
> it's 100hr/ARA as a minimum here. Other countires of course will be
> different. I had a brief exposure to Aussie CASA maintenance rules
> and regs and didn't like them one little bit, compared to NZ..

Yeah., probably you have inherited the anal retentive Brit rules dreamt
up by the Committee Against Aviation. I don't know much about your
rules, but Oz has some very good stuff regarding homebuilts, for
instance. Some of the most sensible in the world.. OTOH, they have some
of the most nightmarish pilot certification rules going. Ostensibly
aimed at keeping things tight and getting "too outback"


Bertie

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 12:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "chris" > wrote
> >> groups.com:
>
> >> > On Apr 2, 10:11 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> >> chris writes:
> >> >> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
> >> >> > where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c
> >> >> > are either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial,
> >> >> > like Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to
> >> >> > get neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS,
> >> >> > let alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some
> >> >> > commercial operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd
> >> >> > probably be horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of
> >> >> > ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for
> >> >> > good measure...
>
> >> >> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came
> >> >> > with IFR gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero
> >> >> > club, when things like DME and VOR break down they don't get
> >> >> > fixed, they just get placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges.
> >> >> > Of 9 planes at our club, only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The
> >> >> > rest are just placarded u/s. And the only reason there are 4
> >> >> > planes that have gauges that work is 3 of them are brand new
> >> >> > a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know the fuel burn
> >> >> > and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what do we
> >> >> > need gauges for ???
>
> >> >> All the more reason to stick with simulation: all the avionics
> >> >> always work.
>
> >> >> And if your club is skimping on maintenance of instruments, what
> >> >> else is it skimping on? No wonder GA is so dangerous.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.- Hide quoted
> >> >> text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> >> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> >> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All
> >> > the things I actually need definitely work.
>
> >> > And as far as maintenance goes, GA aircraft are required to have
> >> > 100 hour checks, but we also do 50 hour checks and anything that
> >> > needs doing is put right or it doesn't go back into the air.
>
> >> They're not, actually. only if they're for hire in the US. Otherwise,
> >> only an annual is required.
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well I only speak from my experience here in NZ, but I am 99.9 % sure
> > it's 100hr/ARA as a minimum here. Other countires of course will be
> > different. I had a brief exposure to Aussie CASA maintenance rules
> > and regs and didn't like them one little bit, compared to NZ..
>
> Yeah., probably you have inherited the anal retentive Brit rules dreamt
> up by the Committee Against Aviation. I don't know much about your
> rules, but Oz has some very good stuff regarding homebuilts, for
> instance. Some of the most sensible in the world.. OTOH, they have some
> of the most nightmarish pilot certification rules going. Ostensibly
> aimed at keeping things tight and getting "too outback"
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some of the bush pilots over here can be scary too..

One of them put on a right display of knobness in front of us and then
asked why he keeps getting filed on whenever he goes flying...

[DR]

chris wrote:
> On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> chris writes:
>>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
>>> sure you got that right ???
>> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the type
>> usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is really present
>> very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual figures. Since good
>> avionics represent a substantial portion of the total cost of an aircraft, it
>> follows that one wouldn't see advanced avionics that often on aircraft that
>> are not otherwise very expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on
>> a $90,000 aircraft?
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
> private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
> aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
> the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
> vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
> or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
> Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
> are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
> DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> do we need gauges for ???
>

Hi Chris,

Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required... Are
you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what gives?

Cheers MC

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-01, chris > wrote:
> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> do we need gauges for ???

That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
they should work as they provide a useful cross check.

I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.

I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
reserve on landing.

Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
to land short of my destination.

I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
could quite easily have exhausted that.

The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
there was a leak?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-02, chris > wrote:
> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> things I actually need definitely work.

You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
cross checks).

The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
not be left out of that learning!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

DR > wrote in :

> chris wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> chris writes:
>>>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are
>>>> you sure you got that right ???
>>> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is
>>> the type usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is
>>> really present very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have
>>> actual figures. Since good avionics represent a substantial portion
>>> of the total cost of an aircraft, it follows that one wouldn't see
>>> advanced avionics that often on aircraft that are not otherwise very
>>> expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on a $90,000
>>> aircraft?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
>> where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
>> either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
>> Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
>> neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
>> alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
>> operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
>> horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and
>> that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>>
>> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
>> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
>> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
>> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
>> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
>> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is
>> 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we
>> know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight,
>> what do we need gauges for ???
>>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required...
> Are you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
> necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what
> gives?

Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
coudl do it on older 73's for instance.

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-04-02, chris > wrote:
>> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
>> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
>> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
>> things I actually need definitely work.
>
> You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
> use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
> VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
> cross checks).
>
> The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
> not be left out of that learning!
>

You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
useless.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> things I actually need definitely work.
>

I haven't seen this link post in a thought you might enjoy it. It's VOR
simulator.

http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/

[Maxwell]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-04-01, chris > wrote:
>> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
>> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
>> of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
>> the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
>> do we need gauges for ???
>
> That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
> happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
> they should work as they provide a useful cross check.
>
> I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
> country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
> need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
> open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
> the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.
>
> I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
> reserve on landing.
>
> Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
> calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
> to land short of my destination.
>
> I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
> about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
> only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
> could quite easily have exhausted that.
>
> The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
> unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
> How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
> improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
> calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
> there was a leak?
>

If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
considered both legal and acceptable - I highly recommend you carry your own
gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal experience
with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they solve,
if you try to rely heavily on them.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-04-02, Maxwell > wrote:
> If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
> considered both legal and acceptable

A one hour reserve is hardly "little reserve". It's quarter of the
duration of a 1960 Cessna 182 (which has relatively small tanks,
especially compared to later models of Cessna 182). A one hour reserve
is double the day VFR minimum requirement.

(My current aircraft carries only 2.5 hours of fuel! Although its fuel
gauge is a much simpler purely mechanical indicator which does work
properly and gives a reasonable indication of fuel remaining.)

> gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal experience
> with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they solve,
> if you try to rely heavily on them.

So does any instrument if you don't have a cross check. Fuel gauges in
particular ARE the cross check to your preflight visual check, and fuel
burn calculations. If you re-read my message, you'll see in the
particular example I gave that the fuel was visually inspected twice,
and calculations had been performed, and a landing short of the
destination was chosen because the fuel gauge showed less fuel than the
fuel calculations predicted. The error turned out to be in the fuel
level inspection, an easy mistake to make in an unfamiliar aircraft.

The only means of fuel cross check once in flight are the fuel gauges -
you can hardly stick the tanks in flight. Gauges that actually work and
reasonably indicate the fuel level remaining can provide a cross check
which can prevent the following situations:

- lack of experience with a particular aircraft type
- error in fuel burn calculations
- error in engine management (mixture too rich)
- mechanical failure (fuel leak)
- error in preflight (forgetting to do a visual check, or being fooled
because the aircraft was parked on a slope)

....from a normal landing at an airport short of your destination, into a
fuel exhaustion accident. Indeed, some years ago, a poster to this
newsgroup ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak. Perhaps the pilot had been
conditioned to believe that fuel gauges were utterly useless and did not
include them in a cross check, instead relying on a single source of
data (fuel calculations and time in flight).

Cross checks in aviation are a _good thing_. Failing to maintain a
basic instrument that can provide a useful cross check means there's one
less tool at your disposal to prevent an accident.

(In particular, never trust a fuel gauge if it says you have more fuel
than you think you have. However, ALWAYS trust a fuel gauge if it says
you have less fuel than you think you have! Landing to find out why is a
lot cheaper than pressing on, believing your fuel inspection and fuel
burn calculations - only to end up upside down in a field half an hour
later because your fuel was being pumped overboard. How are you going to
detect mechanical problems with the fuel system if the gauge isn't
working? This is why broken fuel gauges should be fixed).

We expect to have to do cross checks for everything else - navigational
cross checks (we never rely on a single source for navigation, whether
this be only using a single road to positively identify a ground feature
instead of the road and two other features), or for our instruments (we
don't just bore holes IFR looking only at the attitude indicator for
attitude information - we scan the other instruments to make sure that
the AI is telling the truth), and we fly approaches not only with the
ILS tuned in, but a timer running, or some other kind of cross check
like a crossing radial.

Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
> Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
> useless.

If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR that
works.

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

[Rich Ahrens]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Bertie ...
>
> You were absent from the group when we made a rather collective decision to
> disregard maniac's postings. I'd appreciate it if you would join us.
>
> Jim

Boy, that collective decision seems to be working out real well now,
doesn't it?

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
the cockpit.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 4:43 pm, DR > wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> chris writes:
> >>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
> >>> sure you got that right ???
> >> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the type
> >> usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is really present
> >> very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual figures. Since good
> >> avionics represent a substantial portion of the total cost of an aircraft, it
> >> follows that one wouldn't see advanced avionics that often on aircraft that
> >> are not otherwise very expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on
> >> a $90,000 aircraft?
>
> >> --
> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
> > private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
> > aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
> > the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
> > vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
> > or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
> > Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
> > are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
> > DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> > gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> > like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> > placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > do we need gauges for ???
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required... Are
> you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
> necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what gives?
>
> Cheers MC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They have fuel gauges.. they just don't work :-)

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 9:33 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-04-01, chris > wrote:
>
> > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > do we need gauges for ???
>
> That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
> happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
> they should work as they provide a useful cross check.
>
> I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
> country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
> need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
> open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
> the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.
>
> I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
> reserve on landing.
>
> Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
> calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
> to land short of my destination.
>
> I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
> about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
> only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
> could quite easily have exhausted that.
>
> The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
> unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
> How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
> improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
> calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
> there was a leak?
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 2, 9:35 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-04-02, chris > wrote:
>
> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> > things I actually need definitely work.
>
> You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
> use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
> VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
> cross checks).
>
> The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
> not be left out of that learning!
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I know roughly how to use a VOR and have used them occasionally, but
for 90% of my flying it isn't necessary, so I wouldn't care if I ended
up in an aircraft without one... I think DME is far more useful to
the sort of flying I do than VOR and I much prefer to fly one of the a/
c we have that has DME. Of course the plane I am about to do my big
trip in has a DME but for as long as I can remember it's been
placarded inop

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 12:37 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 2007-04-02, chris > wrote:
> >> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> >> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> >> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> >> things I actually need definitely work.
>
> > You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
> > use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
> > VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
> > cross checks).
>
> > The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
> > not be left out of that learning!
>
> You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
> Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
> useless.

I dunno about other countries, but especially over the nastier parts
of NZ there aren't a whole lot of navaids, period. VOR's are nice for
making sure you are on track for one of the main centres airports, but
there's a lot of airfields around the place with no navaids, and even
going to one with a VOR, quite often high terrain and low weather
makes them useless for a VFR pilot

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 12:39 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> > things I actually need definitely work.
>
> I haven't seen this link post in a thought you might enjoy it. It's VOR
> simulator.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/

Thanks!

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 5:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
> > Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
> > useless.
>
> If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR that
> works.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked? Cripes!! What about terrain?? You are VFR here,
remember, and there could well be a big hill in your path back to the
VOR. I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dylan Smith writes:
> > Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> > that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> > at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>
> Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
> the cockpit.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will be
flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

[Newps]

chris wrote:


>
> I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
> heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
> the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

I could dip the tanks of my 182 and it was very accurate. I cannot dip
the tanks of my Bonanza due to the shape. There is a tab to determine
full tanks, 35 and 30 gallons. Less than 30 gallons there is no way to
positively know.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
> that worked?

No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
instruments that worked.

I don't think it's prudent to say "I'll never get stuck in IMC, so I don't
need working instruments." The more instruments I have, the better, even if I
never plan to do anything but fly VFR in the severest of clear weather.

> What about terrain??

I'd have a full set of charts, too. Everyone has a full set of charts on
board at all times ... right?

> You are VFR here, remember, and there could well be a big hill in
> your path back to the VOR.

If I'm stuck in IMC, at least a VOR gives me a vague idea of where I am, which
is a lot better than not knowing at all. If I know I'm on radial xxx from VOR
yyy, and I know the area, I can get a pretty good idea of whether or not I'm
clear of terrain. And of course I have my charts.

> I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
> about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
> otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

I'd avoid IMC with anything less than a full suite of avionics certified for
instrument flight and in perfect working order. Even then, I'd probably avoid
all but the tamest IMC (e.g., fog or other low visibility).

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!

Better safe than sorry, I say.

> In a few days I will be
> flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 10:01 am, Newps > wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
> > I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
> > heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
> > the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.
>
> I could dip the tanks of my 182 and it was very accurate. I cannot dip
> the tanks of my Bonanza due to the shape. There is a tab to determine
> full tanks, 35 and 30 gallons. Less than 30 gallons there is no way to
> positively know.

On our club's new Alphas there is no way at present to dip the
(single) tank so we need a fuel gauge that works. I don't know about
our aircraft but on the (slightly) older Robins I had some experience
with (same design as the Alphas) the fuel gauge senders seem to fail
with alarming regularity.

And on the older 152's we used to have the fuel gauges were all over
the show, and because the aircraft are so old, Cessna have changed the
system which would have required several thousand dollars per aircraft
to replace the whole fuel indicating system, so it was never done.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
> heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
> the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

The easy solution, then, is to have both. And whichever figure is lower is
the one you use.

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

[DR]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> DR > wrote in :
>
>> chris wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> chris writes:
>>>>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are
>>>>> you sure you got that right ???
>>>> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is
>>>> the type usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is
>>>> really present very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have
>>>> actual figures. Since good avionics represent a substantial portion
>>>> of the total cost of an aircraft, it follows that one wouldn't see
>>>> advanced avionics that often on aircraft that are not otherwise very
>>>> expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on a $90,000
>>>> aircraft?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
>>> where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
>>> either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
>>> Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
>>> neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
>>> alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
>>> operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
>>> horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and
>>> that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>>>
>>> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
>>> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
>>> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
>>> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
>>> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
>>> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is
>>> 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we
>>> know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight,
>>> what do we need gauges for ???
>>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required...
>> Are you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
>> necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what
>> gives?
>
> Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
> are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
> coudl do it on older 73's for instance.
>

Hmm, that really surprises me (but then a lot of things do!). I guess
the issue of a fuel leak would be moot... On the other hand, not having
cockpit guages (or the PIC not checking them) would contribute to why
that Canadian(?) heavy ran out of A1 awhile ago?

Cheers MC
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your
customers drift off to free webmail services install your own
web gateway!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ----

[Dave Doe]

In article m>, pa28_
says...
> On Apr 2, 9:33 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2007-04-01, chris > wrote:
> >
> > > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > > do we need gauges for ???
> >
> > That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
> > happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
> > they should work as they provide a useful cross check.
> >
> > I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
> > country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
> > need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
> > open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
> > the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.
> >
> > I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
> > reserve on landing.
> >
> > Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
> > calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
> > to land short of my destination.
> >
> > I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
> > about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
> > only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
> > could quite easily have exhausted that.
> >
> > The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
> > unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
> > How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
> > improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
> > calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
> > there was a leak?
> >
> > --
> > Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> > Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
>
> I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
> heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
> the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

I guess what's being suggested here Chris is say if:
you fly a plane and you do your measurements and calcs BUT SAY the fuel
cap is loose, or worse it comes off. Your tank's gonna empty really
fast - and while you may note a missing cap, you may not note a loose
one. A fuel gage that is working might save yer bacon here.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article om>, pa28_
says...
> On Apr 3, 5:50 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Maxwell writes:
> > > You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
> > > Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
> > > useless.
> >
> > If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR that
> > works.
> >
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
> that worked? Cripes!! What about terrain?? You are VFR here,
> remember, and there could well be a big hill in your path back to the
> VOR. I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
> about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
> otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

He's not a real pilot remember :)

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
> > that worked?
>
> No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
> instruments that worked.

Why, or better question HOW could this happen? Me: I'd be on the ground
already, or heading back the other way. I would *not* get trapped by
bad weather (and we have very fast changeable conditions in New
Zealand).

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!
>
> Better safe than sorry, I say.
>
> > In a few days I will be
> > flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> > fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>
> If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
> as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.

Say 32 litres and hour, plus or minus a few - ain't gonna make much
difference.

Or to rephrase, how can a 32l/hr plane consume say twice that?

We know you're not a real pilot - well let me tell you that in the real
world, the rated value is used, *and checked* over time. And adjusted
as necessary.

I've flown a number of Cessnas and Pipers from different organisations
and they've all consumed the amount the manual tells me +/- sweet FA.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Why, or better question HOW could this happen?

A sudden change in the weather.

> I would *not* get trapped by bad weather ...

Famous last words.

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

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
>are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
>coudl do it on older 73's for instance.
>

Yep. I believe that is how the Gimli Glider got its start. :-)))


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 11:59 am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > chris writes:
>
> > > You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
> > > that worked?
>
> > No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
> > instruments that worked.
>
> Why, or better question HOW could this happen? Me: I'd be on the ground
> already, or heading back the other way. I would *not* get trapped by
> bad weather (and we have very fast changeable conditions in New
> Zealand).
>
> --
> Duncan

Yep... There are a number of ways to get a forecast, and if you're not
sure, ask an instructor. And then if you go anyway you've only got
your own dumb ass to blame!

I also believe anyone who forges ahead into bad weather without making
sure you can turn around and escape needs more training..

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
> >are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
> >coudl do it on older 73's for instance.
>
> Yep. I believe that is how the Gimli Glider got its start. :-)))
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

Is that Gimli the dwarf ???

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 12:07 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > chris writes:
>
> > > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!
>
> > Better safe than sorry, I say.
>
> > > In a few days I will be
> > > flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> > > fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>
> > If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
> > as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.
>
> Say 32 litres and hour, plus or minus a few - ain't gonna make much
> difference.
>
> Or to rephrase, how can a 32l/hr plane consume say twice that?
>
> We know you're not a real pilot - well let me tell you that in the real
> world, the rated value is used, *and checked* over time. And adjusted
> as necessary.
>
> I've flown a number of Cessnas and Pipers from different organisations
> and they've all consumed the amount the manual tells me +/- sweet FA.
>
> --
> Duncan

Same here... I fly a variety of aircraft, all with 180hp engines, and
we flight plan for 40l/hr. And although there is no way to be 100%
positive without a fuel flow gauge, whenever I have checked the amount
of fuel in the tank when I've come back and it's usually got the right
amount of fuel in it. Sometimes it's got more fuel left if we were
crusing around at a lower power setting...


I missed the post you replied too but I want to tell him that I *will*
have 4 1/2 hr fuel on board because that's how much it takes when the
tanks are full. We know at 75% it burns 40L / hr, and I know what 75%
is because it's marked on the tacho!!! For those who don't know,
that's why 172s have marks on the tacho with SL, 5 and 10. That's the
RPM for 75% at those altitudes.

Or so I am led to believe...

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 10:25 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
> > that worked?
>
> No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
> instruments that worked.
>
> I don't think it's prudent to say "I'll never get stuck in IMC, so I don't
> need working instruments." The more instruments I have, the better, even if I
> never plan to do anything but fly VFR in the severest of clear weather.
>

Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.


> > What about terrain??
>
> I'd have a full set of charts, too. Everyone has a full set of charts on
> board at all times ... right?
>

We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
are no good if you can't see where you're going!


> > You are VFR here, remember, and there could well be a big hill in
> > your path back to the VOR.
>
> If I'm stuck in IMC, at least a VOR gives me a vague idea of where I am, which
> is a lot better than not knowing at all. If I know I'm on radial xxx from VOR
> yyy, and I know the area, I can get a pretty good idea of whether or not I'm
> clear of terrain. And of course I have my charts.

If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
a position from a VOR..

>
> > I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
> > about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
> > otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!
>
> I'd avoid IMC with anything less than a full suite of avionics certified for
> instrument flight and in perfect working order. Even then, I'd probably avoid
> all but the tamest IMC (e.g., fog or other low visibility).
>

No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 10:26 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!
>
> Better safe than sorry, I say.
>
> > In a few days I will be
> > flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> > fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>
> If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
> as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I will have that much fuel because the aircraft holds 190L of fuel,
minus 4L unusable per side, and at 75% it burns 40L per hour. You
work it out.

I will be flying for approx 2 1/2 hours. I have 30 mins reserve and
for that particular trip I have to allow 30 mins extra for holding.
That is 3 1/2 hours. So even after all that I still have an hour's
fuel up my sleeve, although I will need to work out the wind on the
day to get an accurate g/s and flight time.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 11:56 am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article m>, pa28_
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 9:33 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > > On 2007-04-01, chris > wrote:
>
> > > > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > > > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > > > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > > > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > > > do we need gauges for ???
>
> > > That's a hazardous attitude, and a fuel exhaustion accident waiting to
> > > happen. The fuel gauges should not be relied on - this is true - but
> > > they should work as they provide a useful cross check.
>
> > > I was new to the 1960 Cessna 182 which I was taking on a long cross
> > > country trip. The night before, I checked the fuel to make sure I didn't
> > > need to have it topped off, since I was leaving before the FBO would be
> > > open. Looking into the tank, the fuel was at the top. I checked it again
> > > the next morning as part of my preflight. The fuel level was the same.
>
> > > I had calculated my fuel burn for the trip, which gave me an hour's
> > > reserve on landing.
>
> > > Halfway through the trip, the fuel gauges showed less fuel than my
> > > calculations said the tanks should have, so I told ATC that I was going
> > > to land short of my destination.
>
> > > I then discovered that what looked like full wasn't really - probably
> > > about 45 minutes off full. I could have ended up at my destination with
> > > only 15 minutes of fuel. A go around, or a vexatious routing from ATC
> > > could quite easily have exhausted that.
>
> > > The important lesson is to be conservative with long flights in an
> > > unfamiliar aircraft, and that fuel gauges are a very useful cross check.
> > > How many fuel exhaustions have happened because fuel gauges have been
> > > improperly maintained, could not provide a cross check, and the pilot's
> > > calculation was wrong? Or the pilot had less fuel than he thought? Or
> > > there was a leak?
>
> > > --
> > > Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> > > Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
>
> > I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
> > heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
> > the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.
>
> I guess what's being suggested here Chris is say if:
> you fly a plane and you do your measurements and calcs BUT SAY the fuel
> cap is loose, or worse it comes off. Your tank's gonna empty really
> fast - and while you may note a missing cap, you may not note a loose
> one. A fuel gage that is working might save yer bacon here.
>
> --
> Duncan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I understand. I guess it's more of an issue with a high-wing a/c.
With a low-wing you just switch tanks and start looking for a close
airport.

[Jose]

> No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
> of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
> and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
> heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!

In the US you need not be in sight of the surface for VFR.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 1:58 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
> > of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
> > and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
> > heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!
>
> In the US you need not be in sight of the surface for VFR.
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!

[Sylvain]

chris wrote:

>> In the US you need not be in sight of the surface for VFR.
>
> Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!

sure, but you can be flying over a wonderful undercast without
having to fly IFR (note: to do so you must have at least a
private certificate, students, recreational and sport pilots
must keep visual reference to the surface);

--Sylvain

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
>> Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often
>> totally
>> useless.
>
> If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR
> that
> works.
>

If a VFR pilot flys in to bad weather, tuning a VOR is probably going to be
the least of his worries.

A lot of pilots choose their weather carefully, and spend a great deal of
their time flying within 100 miles or so of their home base. When doing so
you simply navigate by ground reference, and spend little if any time using
VOR navigation.

[Jim Logajan]

Sylvain > wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
>>> In the US you need not be in sight of the surface for VFR.
>>
>> Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>
> sure, but you can be flying over a wonderful undercast without
> having to fly IFR (note: to do so you must have at least a
> private certificate, students, recreational and sport pilots
> must keep visual reference to the surface);

Just FYI: Part 103 ultralight pilots must also keep visual reference to the
surface (section 103.21).

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
> cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.

It helps a great deal if you know how to use the instruments. It'll even save
your life.

> We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
> are no good if you can't see where you're going!

They are if you have instruments telling you where you are. You then look at
the chart and check the height of terrain and compare it to your altitude.

> If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
> and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
> a position from a VOR..

One you're straight and level, you're going to have to figure out where you
are, and that's when a VOR comes in handy.

> No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
> of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
> and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
> heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!

Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't care what's legal or illegal, and if I
get stuck in IMC, I have to deal with it; I can't just tell the clouds that
they're putting me in violation and make them go away.

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

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
>> > that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
>> > having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
>> > things I actually need definitely work.
>>
>> I haven't seen this link post in a thought you might enjoy it. It's VOR
>> simulator.
>>
>> http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/
>
> Thanks!
>

You're very welcome. I wish something like that was available when I was
learning the VOR system. I usually use it now to explain to friends and
family.

[Jose]

> Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!

Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.

It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:


>> We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
>> are no good if you can't see where you're going!
>
> They are if you have instruments telling you where you are.

if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
way or the other.

--Sylvain

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>
> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
> certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
> contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
>
> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
> it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me how
dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you might have
a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are now telling
me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??
I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something,
which I was under the impression are supposed to be secondary to your
map reading! But what do I know... :-)

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 2:56 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
> >> are no good if you can't see where you're going!
>
> > They are if you have instruments telling you where you are.
>
> if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
> the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
> way or the other.
>
> --Sylvain

Isn't it something like 90 seconds life expectancy for a VFR pilot
entering cloud ???

And as far as I am concerned, if you are a VFR pilot, if you enter
IMC, it isn't suddenly IFR flying if you ain't got your IFR rating!

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 2 Apr, 23:41, DR > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > DR > wrote :
>
> >> chris wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>> chris writes:
> >>>>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are
> >>>>> you sure you got that right ???
> >>>> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is
> >>>> the type usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is
> >>>> really present very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have
> >>>> actual figures. Since good avionics represent a substantial portion
> >>>> of the total cost of an aircraft, it follows that one wouldn't see
> >>>> advanced avionics that often on aircraft that are not otherwise very
> >>>> expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on a $90,000
> >>>> aircraft?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> >>> I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country,
> >>> where private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are
> >>> either aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like
> >>> Senecas and the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get
> >>> neglected. The vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let
> >>> alone glass cockpits or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial
> >>> operated light a/c like Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be
> >>> horrified at how basic they are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and
> >>> that's all they get. Maybe a DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> >>> And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> >>> gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> >>> like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> >>> placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> >>> only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> >>> And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is
> >>> 3 of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we
> >>> know the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight,
> >>> what do we need gauges for ???
>
> >> Hi Chris,
>
> >> Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required...
> >> Are you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
> >> necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what
> >> gives?
>
> > Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
> > are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
> > coudl do it on older 73's for instance.
>
> Hmm, that really surprises me (but then a lot of things do!). I guess
> the issue of a fuel leak would be moot... On the other hand, not having
> cockpit guages (or the PIC not checking them) would contribute to why
> that Canadian(?) heavy ran out of A1 awhile ago?
>

That's right. It was not an allowable MEL item in that airplane. Not
with the fault that they had, anyway, but they misread the MEL and
took it and at the same time made some errors in calculating the
uplift. There are restirctions as to what you can or cannot do with US
fuel gauges, but I can't remember exactly what nor can I look it up
cuz my current drive must have them to fly. Though we have drips, I.ve
never ever used them on this airplane. Did lots of times on the 737
and a couple of others, though.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 2 Apr, 21:48, "chris" > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 4:43 pm, DR > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > chris wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 5:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > >> chris writes:
> > >>> None of the small aircraft I have ever flown has had TCAS.. Are you
> > >>> sure you got that right ???
> > >> By "often used," I meant "when present on small aircraft, this is the type
> > >> usually used," because it's cheaper. I don't think TCAS is really present
> > >> very much on small GA aircraft, but I don't have actual figures. Since good
> > >> avionics represent a substantial portion of the total cost of an aircraft, it
> > >> follows that one wouldn't see advanced avionics that often on aircraft that
> > >> are not otherwise very expensive. Who would install $2 million of avionics on
> > >> a $90,000 aircraft?
>
> > >> --
> > >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > > I fear it's even worse than you think, at least in this country, where
> > > private aircraft ownership is quite rare. Most light a/c are either
> > > aero club owned, i.e. 172 / Cherokee, or commercial, like Senecas and
> > > the like.. And on the whole, avionics tends to get neglected. The
> > > vast majority of club a/c wouldn't have GPS, let alone glass cockpits
> > > or TCAS. I have seen inside some commercial operated light a/c like
> > > Senecas and Aztecs and you'd probably be horrified at how basic they
> > > are. Just a couple of ADFs and VORs and that's all they get. Maybe a
> > > DME thrown in for good measure...
>
> > > And don't think they get maintained either. If the a/c came with IFR
> > > gear and isn't being used for IFR, like at an aero club, when things
> > > like DME and VOR break down they don't get fixed, they just get
> > > placarded as inop. Same as fuel gauges. Of 9 planes at our club,
> > > only 4 have working fuel gauges!! The rest are just placarded u/s.
> > > And the only reason there are 4 planes that have gauges that work is 3
> > > of them are brand new a/craft. The deal with fuel gauges is, we know
> > > the fuel burn and we have a stick to dip the tank on preflight, what
> > > do we need gauges for ???
>
> > Hi Chris,
>
> > Doesn't the MEL in part 91.509 say that fuel gauges are required... Are
> > you saying that the director CAA has deemed that working (not
> > necessarily accurate) fuel gauges are not required in your club -what gives?
>
> > Cheers MC- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> They have fuel gauges.. they just don't work :-)- Hide quoted text -
>

Well, there's only one thing you can rely on for a fuel gauge to tell
you anyway. That it's in the panel. That's it. You must check at least
one other way that you have sufficient in any airplane except a
glider..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 2 Apr, 22:26, "chris" > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Dylan Smith writes:
> > > Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> > > that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> > > at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>
> > Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
> > the cockpit.
>
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will be
> flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

You won't be flying. you won't be on a cross coutry and you won't have
fuel, Jesus boi.

Oh and BTW, How do you know Jesus didn't **** like a bunny?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 3 Apr, 01:07, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > chris writes:
>
> > > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!
>
> > Better safe than sorry, I say.
>
> > > In a few days I will be
> > > flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> > > fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>
> > If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
> > as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.
>
> Say 32 litres and hour, plus or minus a few - ain't gonna make much
> difference.
>
> Or to rephrase, how can a 32l/hr plane consume say twice that?
>
> We know you're not a real pilot -

He's not even an unreal pilot.


Bertie

[Jose]

> What happens if you have an engine failure?? Or get
> to your destination and you can't get down??

Those are good considerations that would enter into your go/no-go
decision. If you have an instrument rating and the aircraft is IFR
capable, and there isn't ice in the undercast, and you are on flight
following, it is probably not a big deal to get an IFR flight plan on
the fly and descend through the cloud deck in an emergency. Or even not
in an emergency - I have flown many flights VFR above a broken or
overcast layer and gotten a pop-up instrument approach at the end. (I
and the plane were instrument rated). Doing it this way allows a much
more direct routing, and that can cut the need for a fuel stop.

Engines themselves are pretty reliable (though nothing is perfect) -
most engine failures are due to fuel mismanagement. Be extra careful
with fuel if you are planning a trip over an undercast. Ditto for
extended overwater flight.

> I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
> can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something...

True. No navigation system does everything.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Why, or better question HOW could this happen?
>
> A sudden change in the weather.

It happens here in NZ *regularly*.

> > I would *not* get trapped by bad weather ...
>
> Famous last words.

Well I'm still here.

--
Duncan

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 3:37 pm, "Bertie the Bunyip" >
wrote:
> On 2 Apr, 22:26, "chris" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > Dylan Smith writes:
> > > > Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> > > > that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> > > > at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>
> > > Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
> > > the cockpit.
>
> > > --
> > > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will be
> > flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
> > fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>
> You won't be flying. you won't be on a cross coutry and you won't have
> fuel, Jesus boi.
>
> Oh and BTW, How do you know Jesus didn't **** like a bunny?
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Eh?? I posted about having a 2 1/2 hr cross country coming up, not
mx, and I certainly will be flying a real aeroplane!! :-)

[Maxwell]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-04-02, Maxwell > wrote:
>> If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
>> considered both legal and acceptable
>
> A one hour reserve is hardly "little reserve". It's quarter of the
> duration of a 1960 Cessna 182 (which has relatively small tanks,
> especially compared to later models of Cessna 182). A one hour reserve
> is double the day VFR minimum requirement.
>
> (My current aircraft carries only 2.5 hours of fuel! Although its fuel
> gauge is a much simpler purely mechanical indicator which does work
> properly and gives a reasonable indication of fuel remaining.)
>
>> gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal
>> experience
>> with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they
>> solve,
>> if you try to rely heavily on them.
>
> So does any instrument if you don't have a cross check. Fuel gauges in
> particular ARE the cross check to your preflight visual check, and fuel
> burn calculations. If you re-read my message, you'll see in the
> particular example I gave that the fuel was visually inspected twice,
> and calculations had been performed, and a landing short of the
> destination was chosen because the fuel gauge showed less fuel than the
> fuel calculations predicted. The error turned out to be in the fuel
> level inspection, an easy mistake to make in an unfamiliar aircraft.
>
> The only means of fuel cross check once in flight are the fuel gauges -
> you can hardly stick the tanks in flight. Gauges that actually work and
> reasonably indicate the fuel level remaining can provide a cross check
> which can prevent the following situations:
>
> - lack of experience with a particular aircraft type
> - error in fuel burn calculations
> - error in engine management (mixture too rich)
> - mechanical failure (fuel leak)
> - error in preflight (forgetting to do a visual check, or being fooled
> because the aircraft was parked on a slope)
>
> ...from a normal landing at an airport short of your destination, into a
> fuel exhaustion accident. Indeed, some years ago, a poster to this
> newsgroup ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak. Perhaps the pilot had been
> conditioned to believe that fuel gauges were utterly useless and did not
> include them in a cross check, instead relying on a single source of
> data (fuel calculations and time in flight).
>
> Cross checks in aviation are a _good thing_. Failing to maintain a
> basic instrument that can provide a useful cross check means there's one
> less tool at your disposal to prevent an accident.
>
> (In particular, never trust a fuel gauge if it says you have more fuel
> than you think you have. However, ALWAYS trust a fuel gauge if it says
> you have less fuel than you think you have! Landing to find out why is a
> lot cheaper than pressing on, believing your fuel inspection and fuel
> burn calculations - only to end up upside down in a field half an hour
> later because your fuel was being pumped overboard. How are you going to
> detect mechanical problems with the fuel system if the gauge isn't
> working? This is why broken fuel gauges should be fixed).
>
> We expect to have to do cross checks for everything else - navigational
> cross checks (we never rely on a single source for navigation, whether
> this be only using a single road to positively identify a ground feature
> instead of the road and two other features), or for our instruments (we
> don't just bore holes IFR looking only at the attitude indicator for
> attitude information - we scan the other instruments to make sure that
> the AI is telling the truth), and we fly approaches not only with the
> ILS tuned in, but a timer running, or some other kind of cross check
> like a crossing radial.
>
> Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>

First of all Dylan, I'm not trying to take issue with you post. Your use of
the fuel reserves are correct and I acknowledged that. I was just trying to
offer you another perspective that I have learned by experience, and thought
you might consider it and perhaps find it useful.

Increasing your reserve for 30 minutes to 1 hour in a 182, especially in an
aircraft you are unfamiliar with, is not a bad idea and will seldom add more
than one fuel stop to even the longest cross country flights. Besides, it's
a good excuse to take a whiz, grab an extra coke, and/or experience a small
airport you wouldn't have gotten to see otherwise. And it is of coarse,
another take off and landing than can make or break your currency
requirements sometimes, depending on how often you get to fly.

You also increase your odds of temporary fuel starvation when you get in the
habit of running your tanks real low, due to things like turbulence or
robust maneuvering. Not usually a problem unless you are held out on turning
base for landing, because some cowboy in a cub thinks he needs a one mile
final, but it does happen.

And your own example of misjudging the fill level on preflight is a great
example of why it's nice to use a stick. I don't find any of the Cessnas
hard to visual, but you will never miss with a stick if the tank design
allows it, and you have a good stick. Especially an error as much as 45
minutes.

Also, fuel leaks and fuel siphoning does obviously does occur, but it's very
rare and usually slight enough you won't be able to detect it in most fuel
gages. They simply are not USUALLY that accurate. I have never personally
seen a leak, and the only siphon issue I have ever seen was someone leaving
the cap loose on a Cessna. And they didn't detect it in the fuel gage, they
heard it banging away on top of the wing. So yes these things do happen, but
I'd bet it's seldom that a fuel gage is what makes or breaks the day.

But at any rate, we could argue _what ifs_ till the cows come home, but that
certainly wasn't my intention. My only point was that in my experience,
which although is less than a lot of the folks here, but it is considerable.
Fuel minimums are just what they say, MINIMUMS. And in my experience they
should be avoided if at all possible, it's just too easy to do. Far too many
GA fatalities are directly attributed to fuel starvation, and it's not
always because the pilot was stupid or fool hardy. It's quite often just
because -**** happens.

So let me leave you with a goofy saying - that with things go to pot, there
are a few things more useless to a pilot than the altitude above him, or the
air in his fuel tanks - and the most unreliable instrument in the cockpit
will always be the fuel gage.

Best wishes,
Max

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> chris writes:
>
>> Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
>> cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.
>
> It helps a great deal if you know how to use the instruments. It'll even
> save
> your life.
>
>> We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
>> are no good if you can't see where you're going!
>
> They are if you have instruments telling you where you are. You then look
> at
> the chart and check the height of terrain and compare it to your altitude.
>
>> If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
>> and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
>> a position from a VOR..
>
> One you're straight and level, you're going to have to figure out where
> you
> are, and that's when a VOR comes in handy.
>
>> No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
>> of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
>> and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
>> heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!
>
> Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't care what's legal or illegal, and if
> I
> get stuck in IMC, I have to deal with it; I can't just tell the clouds
> that
> they're putting me in violation and make them go away.
>

You moron. If you loose your ground reference you can just open your bedroom
window shade.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
>> that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
>> at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>
> Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die
> in
> the cockpit.
>

Correction, some people actually love aviation so much that they are
actually willing to fly.

[Sylvain]

chris wrote:
> me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
> engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??

All we said is that it was legal, not that it was necessarily a good
idea :-) This reflects a fundamental difference in mentality: you
seem to expect the rules to protect you against the bad thing that
migth happen to you; what if this or what if that there should
be a law against it, think of the children. Well, I prefer
to make my own decisions with a little interference from authorities
as is possible. Seems to work reasonably well actually.

--Sylvain

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 4:28 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2007-04-02, Maxwell > wrote:
> >> If you are planing a flight with so little reserve, which is obviously
> >> considered both legal and acceptable
>
> > A one hour reserve is hardly "little reserve". It's quarter of the
> > duration of a 1960 Cessna 182 (which has relatively small tanks,
> > especially compared to later models of Cessna 182). A one hour reserve
> > is double the day VFR minimum requirement.
>
> > (My current aircraft carries only 2.5 hours of fuel! Although its fuel
> > gauge is a much simpler purely mechanical indicator which does work
> > properly and gives a reasonable indication of fuel remaining.)
>
> >> gage, and physically _stick_ the tanks on preflight. My personal
> >> experience
> >> with fuel gages has been that they can cause more problems than they
> >> solve,
> >> if you try to rely heavily on them.
>
> > So does any instrument if you don't have a cross check. Fuel gauges in
> > particular ARE the cross check to your preflight visual check, and fuel
> > burn calculations. If you re-read my message, you'll see in the
> > particular example I gave that the fuel was visually inspected twice,
> > and calculations had been performed, and a landing short of the
> > destination was chosen because the fuel gauge showed less fuel than the
> > fuel calculations predicted. The error turned out to be in the fuel
> > level inspection, an easy mistake to make in an unfamiliar aircraft.
>
> > The only means of fuel cross check once in flight are the fuel gauges -
> > you can hardly stick the tanks in flight. Gauges that actually work and
> > reasonably indicate the fuel level remaining can provide a cross check
> > which can prevent the following situations:
>
> > - lack of experience with a particular aircraft type
> > - error in fuel burn calculations
> > - error in engine management (mixture too rich)
> > - mechanical failure (fuel leak)
> > - error in preflight (forgetting to do a visual check, or being fooled
> > because the aircraft was parked on a slope)
>
> > ...from a normal landing at an airport short of your destination, into a
> > fuel exhaustion accident. Indeed, some years ago, a poster to this
> > newsgroup ran out of fuel due to a fuel leak. Perhaps the pilot had been
> > conditioned to believe that fuel gauges were utterly useless and did not
> > include them in a cross check, instead relying on a single source of
> > data (fuel calculations and time in flight).
>
> > Cross checks in aviation are a _good thing_. Failing to maintain a
> > basic instrument that can provide a useful cross check means there's one
> > less tool at your disposal to prevent an accident.
>
> > (In particular, never trust a fuel gauge if it says you have more fuel
> > than you think you have. However, ALWAYS trust a fuel gauge if it says
> > you have less fuel than you think you have! Landing to find out why is a
> > lot cheaper than pressing on, believing your fuel inspection and fuel
> > burn calculations - only to end up upside down in a field half an hour
> > later because your fuel was being pumped overboard. How are you going to
> > detect mechanical problems with the fuel system if the gauge isn't
> > working? This is why broken fuel gauges should be fixed).
>
> > We expect to have to do cross checks for everything else - navigational
> > cross checks (we never rely on a single source for navigation, whether
> > this be only using a single road to positively identify a ground feature
> > instead of the road and two other features), or for our instruments (we
> > don't just bore holes IFR looking only at the attitude indicator for
> > attitude information - we scan the other instruments to make sure that
> > the AI is telling the truth), and we fly approaches not only with the
> > ILS tuned in, but a timer running, or some other kind of cross check
> > like a crossing radial.
>
> > Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
> > that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
> > at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?
>
> First of all Dylan, I'm not trying to take issue with you post. Your use of
> the fuel reserves are correct and I acknowledged that. I was just trying to
> offer you another perspective that I have learned by experience, and thought
> you might consider it and perhaps find it useful.
>
> Increasing your reserve for 30 minutes to 1 hour in a 182, especially in an
> aircraft you are unfamiliar with, is not a bad idea and will seldom add more
> than one fuel stop to even the longest cross country flights. Besides, it's
> a good excuse to take a whiz, grab an extra coke, and/or experience a small
> airport you wouldn't have gotten to see otherwise. And it is of coarse,
> another take off and landing than can make or break your currency
> requirements sometimes, depending on how often you get to fly.
>
> You also increase your odds of temporary fuel starvation when you get in the
> habit of running your tanks real low, due to things like turbulence or
> robust maneuvering. Not usually a problem unless you are held out on turning
> base for landing, because some cowboy in a cub thinks he needs a one mile
> final, but it does happen.
>
> And your own example of misjudging the fill level on preflight is a great
> example of why it's nice to use a stick. I don't find any of the Cessnas
> hard to visual, but you will never miss with a stick if the tank design
> allows it, and you have a good stick. Especially an error as much as 45
> minutes.
>
> Also, fuel leaks and fuel siphoning does obviously does occur, but it's very
> rare and usually slight enough you won't be able to detect it in most fuel
> gages. They simply are not USUALLY that accurate. I have never personally
> seen a leak, and the only siphon issue I have ever seen was someone leaving
> the cap loose on a Cessna. And they didn't detect it in the fuel gage, they
> heard it banging away on top of the wing. So yes these things do happen, but
> I'd bet it's seldom that a fuel gage is what makes or breaks the day.
>
> But at any rate, we could argue _what ifs_ till the cows come home, but that
> certainly wasn't my intention. My only point was that in my experience,
> which although is less than a lot of the folks here, but it is considerable.
> Fuel minimums are just what they say, MINIMUMS. And in my experience they
> should be avoided if at all possible, it's just too easy to do. Far too many
> GA fatalities are directly attributed to fuel starvation, and it's not
> always because the pilot was stupid or fool hardy. It's quite often just
> because -**** happens.
>
> So let me leave you with a goofy saying - that with things go to pot, there
> are a few things more useless to a pilot than the altitude above him, or the
> air in his fuel tanks - and the most unreliable instrument in the cockpit
> will always be the fuel gage.
>
> Best wishes,
> Max- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
filler in the side window..

If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)

So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
on gauges or eyeballing the tank???

Or am I having another senior moment?? :-)

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 2:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Having lots of instruments doesn't help if you are VFR pilot entering
> > cloud. Your life expectancy is extremely short in those conditions.
>
> It helps a great deal if you know how to use the instruments. It'll even save
> your life.
>

The amount of instrument training a PPL student receives is sufficient
in theory to allow him/her to get the hell out of the weather. Its not
intended to allow you to press on in IMC. You need a lot more IF
training to be proficient enough to not kill yourself..

> > We are talking about flying VFR then entering cloud, right??? Charts
> > are no good if you can't see where you're going!
>
> They are if you have instruments telling you where you are. You then look at
> the chart and check the height of terrain and compare it to your altitude.
>

The last thing I'd be doing is diverting my attention from my scan to
read a chart when I would almost certainly be struggling keeping it
upright.


> > If you were a VFR pilot you'd be more concerned with staying upright
> > and not going into a spiral dive or some such than trying to work out
> > a position from a VOR..
>
> One you're straight and level, you're going to have to figure out where you
> are, and that's when a VOR comes in handy.


No, you get the hell out of the IMC

>
> > No no no!!! As a VFR pilot, you MUST be clear of cloud and in sight
> > of the surface. Anything else is totally illegal and very dangerous
> > and a much better way to kill yourself than any of the talk I have
> > heard around here about leaking fuel tanks!!
>
> Unfortunately, Mother Nature doesn't care what's legal or illegal, and if I
> get stuck in IMC, I have to deal with it; I can't just tell the clouds that
> they're putting me in violation and make them go away.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Two things we are trained to do in the event of imminent IMC. 1)
Always make sure you have an escape route
2) We practise precautionary landings. Stick the damn thing down in a
paddock rather than pressing on and killing yourself.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
> whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
> to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
> like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
> filler in the side window..
>
> If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
> then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
> will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
> whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
>
> So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
> then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
> on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>

I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
top off to be on the safe side.

[Marty Shapiro]

"chris" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
>> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>>
>> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
>> certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
>> contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
>>
>> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
>> it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
>>
>> Jose
>> --
>> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
> Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me how
> dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you might have
> a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are now telling
> me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
> engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??
> I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
> can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something,
> which I was under the impression are supposed to be secondary to your
> map reading! But what do I know... :-)
>

In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the North and
South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you have
no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If you would
not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over a solid
overcast. But if you would, what is the difference, especially if you have
CAVU and can see your destination?

I've done the trip from San Jose to South Lake Tahoe and there have
been several times the central valley is fogged in but the fog only came up
to 1,000' AGL. The weather in the Santa Clara Valley (San Jose), the
mountains west of Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, and at my cruise altitude,
9,500 MSL, it was CAVU all the way. If I have an engine failure over the
central valley, I'm in big trouble as it is often W0X0F on the ground, but
I'm in just as much trouble over the mountains or water where I have CAVU.
If it's W0X0F, unless I'm CAT IIIc capable, even an instrument rating isn't
going to be of much help.

I would not go over an extended overcast unless I knew the weather
patterns at both my origin and destination and planned alternates. In the
mountains, the higher elevation airports often are CAVU when the valley
airports are effectively closed due to Tule fog.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> "chris" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
> > whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
> > to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
> > like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
> > filler in the side window..
> >
> > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
> > then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
> > will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
> > whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
> >
> > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
> > then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
> > on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
> >
>
> I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
> usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
> the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
> the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
> top off to be on the safe side.

Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
passengers, and not be above MAUW.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> "chris" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
> >> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
> >>
> >> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
> >> certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
> >> contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
> >>
> >> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
> >> it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
> >>
> >> Jose
> >> --
> >> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
> >
> > Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me how
> > dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you might have
> > a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are now telling
> > me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
> > engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??
> > I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
> > can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something,
> > which I was under the impression are supposed to be secondary to your
> > map reading! But what do I know... :-)
> >
>
> In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the North and
> South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you have
> no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If you would
> not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over a solid
> overcast. But if you would, what is the difference, especially if you have
> CAVU and can see your destination?

The difference is you pack a liferaft.

--
Duncan

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
> > whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
> > to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
> > like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
> > filler in the side window..
>
> > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
> > then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
> > will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
> > whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
>
> > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
> > then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
> > on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>
> I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
> usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
> the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
> the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
> top off to be on the safe side.


I rent, and have often found not much gas in the tanks.. Without
dipping the tanks I can't tell if there's enough.. I am not likely to
go wait in line to fill up if I am not going far, but we aren't going
anywhere if we don't know how much is in there..

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 7:13 pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> "chris" > wrote roups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
> >> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>
> >> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you must be
> >> certain distances away. However, in the US you do not need ground
> >> contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
>
> >> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances. However,
> >> it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
>
> >> Jose
> >> --
> >> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
> > Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me how
> > dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you might have
> > a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are now telling
> > me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens if you have an
> > engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you can't get down??
> > I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using your map if you
> > can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or GPS or something,
> > which I was under the impression are supposed to be secondary to your
> > map reading! But what do I know... :-)
>
> In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the North and
> South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you have
> no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If you would
> not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over a solid
> overcast. But if you would, what is the difference, especially if you have
> CAVU and can see your destination?
>
> I've done the trip from San Jose to South Lake Tahoe and there have
> been several times the central valley is fogged in but the fog only came up
> to 1,000' AGL. The weather in the Santa Clara Valley (San Jose), the
> mountains west of Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, and at my cruise altitude,
> 9,500 MSL, it was CAVU all the way. If I have an engine failure over the
> central valley, I'm in big trouble as it is often W0X0F on the ground, but
> I'm in just as much trouble over the mountains or water where I have CAVU.
> If it's W0X0F, unless I'm CAT IIIc capable, even an instrument rating isn't
> going to be of much help.
>
> I would not go over an extended overcast unless I knew the weather
> patterns at both my origin and destination and planned alternates. In the
> mountains, the higher elevation airports often are CAVU when the valley
> airports are effectively closed due to Tule fog.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

The difference between flying over water and flying over cloud is if
you have an engine failure over water there is not going to be any
buildings, trees, fences, cows or cars below you. I would really hate
to try and do a forced landing if I don't know what is waiting for me
under the cloud...

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "chris" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> > > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> > > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
> > > whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
> > > to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
> > > like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
> > > filler in the side window..
>
> > > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
> > > then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
> > > will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
> > > whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
>
> > > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
> > > then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
> > > on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>
> > I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
> > usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually find
> > the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are pushing
> > the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
> > top off to be on the safe side.
>
> Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
> passengers, and not be above MAUW.
>
> --
> Duncan

That's right...

Something us fat *******s have worse then the rest of you :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
> the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
> way or the other.

Not if you know how to fly with instruments.

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> And as far as I am concerned, if you are a VFR pilot, if you enter
> IMC, it isn't suddenly IFR flying if you ain't got your IFR rating!

You don't need a rating to know how to fly by instruments. The rating just
makes it legal. But if you are stuck in IMC and you know instrument flight
but don't have the rating, I don't think it would be a good idea to throw up
your hands and give up because you cannot legally use the instruments.

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> The amount of instrument training a PPL student receives is sufficient
> in theory to allow him/her to get the hell out of the weather. Its not
> intended to allow you to press on in IMC. You need a lot more IF
> training to be proficient enough to not kill yourself..

I agree, based on what I've seen of instrument knowledge among alleged pilots
here. But nothing prevents you from learning about instrument flight if you
want to. Personally, I think instrument flight is highly interesting and it
surprises me that so many VFR pilots do not seem to look into it. In fact, I
learned how to fly on instruments before learning how to fly by hand, since
early simulators were much better at simulating instrument flight than they
were at simulating real flight (they still are, but now visual flight is much
more realistic and good enough to be worth practicing).

> The last thing I'd be doing is diverting my attention from my scan to
> read a chart when I would almost certainly be struggling keeping it
> upright.

The aircraft is no more difficult to maintain upright in zero visibility than
it is in perfectly clear weather. There are no evil demons trying to turn it
over just because you are in IMC. Set it straight and level and trim for it
and then you can look at your chart.

If there is someone in the right-hand seat, he or she can help a lot as well,
although that's not an absolute requirement.

> No, you get the hell out of the IMC

If you don't know where you are, which way do you go to get out?

If you've just plunged into IMC, you can make a U-turn and probably get back
out. But if that doesn't work, you'll need a plan B.

> Two things we are trained to do in the event of imminent IMC. 1)
> Always make sure you have an escape route
> 2) We practise precautionary landings. Stick the damn thing down in a
> paddock rather than pressing on and killing yourself.

The first makes sense. But how do you land in IMC?

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Dave Doe > wrote in
. nz:

> In article >,
> says...
>> "chris" > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
>> >> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you
>> >> must be certain distances away. However, in the US you do not
>> >> need ground contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
>> >>
>> >> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances.
>> >> However, it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
>> >>
>> >> Jose
>> >> --
>> >> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>> >
>> > Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me
>> > how dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you
>> > might have a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are
>> > now telling me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens
>> > if you have an engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you
>> > can't get down?? I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using
>> > your map if you can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or
>> > GPS or something, which I was under the impression are supposed to
>> > be secondary to your map reading! But what do I know... :-)
>> >
>>
>> In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the
>> North and
>> South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you
>> have no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If
>> you would not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over
>> a solid overcast. But if you would, what is the difference,
>> especially if you have CAVU and can see your destination?
>
> The difference is you pack a liferaft.
>

Well, yeah, if you don't flip over on landing a fixed gear aircraft on
water and can get out before the aircraft sinks. Of course, this doesn't
address flying over the Sierra-Nevada's where there is no place but tree
tops to land, nor does it address the issue of an instrument rated and
current pilot overflying the California central valley with all airports
below you W0X0F when there is Tule fog. Are these all "No Go"? If the
prospect of an engine failure while overflying Tule fog in the central
valley is a "No Go" for VFR, then is it also a "No Go" for IFR if neither
you, your aircraft, nor the underlying airports are not all CAT IIIc rated?

There is always some risk. You need to decide what level of risk you
will accept. To me, overflying the central valley Tule fog isn't any more
of a risk than overflying the Sierra-Nevada in areas where I've only got
tree tops for landing and not that much altitude AGL.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> You don't need a rating to know how to fly by instruments. The rating
just
> makes it legal. But if you are stuck in IMC and you know instrument
flight
> but don't have the rating, I don't think it would be a good idea to throw
up
> your hands and give up because you cannot legally use the instruments.

Every year there are instrument rated pilots who get killed in "continued
VFR" accidents. "Knowing how" to fly on instruments is not the same thing
as having experience and maintaining proficiency. There is also a stress
factor involved when confronted with weather that is degrading to IMC, and
stress leads to singular focus or the inability to multi-task, which is a
very bad thing when you're flying, especially if you're on instruments.

BDS

[Marty Shapiro]

"chris" > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Apr 3, 7:13 pm, Marty Shapiro >
> wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote
>> roups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 2:53 pm, Jose > wrote:
>> >> > Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>>
>> >> Yes, you must be clear of cloud. Depending on the airspace, you
>> >> must be certain distances away. However, in the US you do not
>> >> need ground contact. You can fly VFR above a solid overcast.
>>
>> >> It may not be too bright to do so, depending on circumstances.
>> >> However, it is legal, and often not a dumb thing to do.
>>
>> >> Jose
>> >> --
>> >> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>>
>> > Makes me laugh, just a little.. People here have been telling me
>> > how dangerous it is to fly without accurate fuel gauges coz you
>> > might have a fuel leak or something like that and here you guys are
>> > now telling me you can fly above a solid overcast.. What happens
>> > if you have an engine failure?? Or get to your destination and you
>> > can't get down?? I also wouldn't think you could navigate by using
>> > your map if you can't see the surface, so that means using VOR or
>> > GPS or something, which I was under the impression are supposed to
>> > be secondary to your map reading! But what do I know... :-)
>>
>> In clear VFR, would you fly over water, say between the North
>> and
>> South Island or, in the US, between Ventura and Catalina? If so, you
>> have no option on where to land should you get an engine failure. If
>> you would not such a flight in clear VFR, then you shouldn't fly over
>> a solid overcast. But if you would, what is the difference,
>> especially if you have CAVU and can see your destination?
>>
>> I've done the trip from San Jose to South Lake Tahoe and
>> there have
>> been several times the central valley is fogged in but the fog only
>> came up to 1,000' AGL. The weather in the Santa Clara Valley (San
>> Jose), the mountains west of Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, and at my
>> cruise altitude, 9,500 MSL, it was CAVU all the way. If I have an
>> engine failure over the central valley, I'm in big trouble as it is
>> often W0X0F on the ground, but I'm in just as much trouble over the
>> mountains or water where I have CAVU. If it's W0X0F, unless I'm CAT
>> IIIc capable, even an instrument rating isn't going to be of much
>> help.
>>
>> I would not go over an extended overcast unless I knew the
>> weather
>> patterns at both my origin and destination and planned alternates.
>> In the mountains, the higher elevation airports often are CAVU when
>> the valley airports are effectively closed due to Tule fog.
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> The difference between flying over water and flying over cloud is if
> you have an engine failure over water there is not going to be any
> buildings, trees, fences, cows or cars below you. I would really hate
> to try and do a forced landing if I don't know what is waiting for me
> under the cloud...
>
>

Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially over open
country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night flight without
an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument flight plan?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

"chris" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "chris" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts..
>> > > It seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip
>> > > your tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have
>> > > one??? In whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd
>> > > be hard pressed to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in
>> > > it, except for things like Robins that have one tank inside the
>> > > fuselage and a funny fuel filler in the side window..
>>
>> > > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not
>> > > standard then people will be inclined to not use them, and then
>> > > they presumably will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be
>> > > prone to going tits up, whereas a stick has no moving parts to
>> > > break down :-)
>>
>> > > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks
>> > > and then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and
>> > > have to rely on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>>
>> > I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them,
>> > is we usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft
>> > and usually find the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so
>> > down. Unless you are pushing the minimums it's either full enough
>> > it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you top off to be on the safe
>> > side.
>>
>> Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
>> passengers, and not be above MAUW.
>>
>> --
>> Duncan
>
> That's right...
>
> Something us fat *******s have worse then the rest of you :-)
>
>

And there are some small aircraft which have an MGLW lower than the MGTOW.
Even if you can top off, you need to calculate how long before your planned
landing to ensure you burn off sufficient fuel to get down to MGLW.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"chris" > wrote:

> If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
> then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
> will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
> whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)

Nope.

I don't dip my tanks and I don't rely on the gauges. The key word
here is "rely.""

--
Bob Noel
(trimming is a lost art)

[Ron Natalie]

BDS wrote:

> Every year there are instrument rated pilots who get killed in "continued
> VFR" accidents. "Knowing how" to fly on instruments is not the same thing
> as having experience and maintaining proficiency.

Another issue is knowing WHEN to fly instruments. If you consider to
look out the window at nothing (or confusing visual indications) rather
than hunkering down on the gauges, you've got only a short time before
you lose control.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2007-04-03 03:14, chris wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >Flown lots of airliners where gauges may be U/S provided that the tanks
>> >are dripped. This is not true of the current crop of airliners but you
>> >coudl do it on older 73's for instance.
>>
>> Yep. I believe that is how the Gimli Glider got its start. :-)))
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>> --
>> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1
>
> Is that Gimli the dwarf ???
>

Nope, not the guy from LotR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Every year there are instrument rated pilots who get killed in "continued
> VFR" accidents. "Knowing how" to fly on instruments is not the same thing
> as having experience and maintaining proficiency.

It does not exclude these.

> There is also a stress
> factor involved when confronted with weather that is degrading to IMC, and
> stress leads to singular focus or the inability to multi-task, which is a
> very bad thing when you're flying, especially if you're on instruments.

Whence the utility of experience and practice.

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

[Rolf Blom]

On 2007-04-03 04:18, Sylvain wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
>>> In the US you need not be in sight of the surface for VFR.
>>
>> Really?? But you gotta be clear of cloud, surely!!!
>
> sure, but you can be flying over a wonderful undercast without
> having to fly IFR (note: to do so you must have at least a
> private certificate, students, recreational and sport pilots
> must keep visual reference to the surface);
>
> --Sylvain

What I recall, here in sweden, one also needs a minimum
of 100hrs logged to go on top of an overcast.
(Or undercast? Not seen 'UVC' in Metars yet.)

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> chris writes:
>
>> And as far as I am concerned, if you are a VFR pilot, if you enter
>> IMC, it isn't suddenly IFR flying if you ain't got your IFR rating!
>
> You don't need a rating to know how to fly by instruments. The rating
> just
> makes it legal. But if you are stuck in IMC and you know instrument
> flight
> but don't have the rating, I don't think it would be a good idea to throw
> up
> your hands and give up because you cannot legally use the instruments.
>

You are clueless. Knowing how to fly by instruments and being able to do so
are two entirely different things. Sorry your simulator won't allow you to
experience vertigo or you would realize how stupid that statement is.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
>> the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
>> way or the other.
>
> Not if you know how to fly with instruments.
>

Every PPL knows how to fly by instruments. It's REQUIRED.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I agree, based on what I've seen of instrument knowledge among alleged
> pilots
> here. But nothing prevents you from learning about instrument flight if
> you
> want to. Personally, I think instrument flight is highly interesting and
> it
> surprises me that so many VFR pilots do not seem to look into it. In
> fact, I
> learned how to fly on instruments before learning how to fly by hand,
> since
> early simulators were much better at simulating instrument flight than
> they
> were at simulating real flight (they still are, but now visual flight is
> much
> more realistic and good enough to be worth practicing).
>
> The aircraft is no more difficult to maintain upright in zero visibility
> than
> it is in perfectly clear weather. There are no evil demons trying to turn
> it
> over just because you are in IMC. Set it straight and level and trim for
> it
> and then you can look at your chart.
>
> If there is someone in the right-hand seat, he or she can help a lot as
> well,
> although that's not an absolute requirement.
>
> If you don't know where you are, which way do you go to get out?
>
> If you've just plunged into IMC, you can make a U-turn and probably get
> back
> out. But if that doesn't work, you'll need a plan B.
>

Nothing is to easy for the ignorate moron that will never have to actually
do it.


> The first makes sense. But how do you land in IMC?

Doesn't matter, you would last long enough to have to.

[Maxwell]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> "chris" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "chris" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> > > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts..
>>> > > It seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip
>>> > > your tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have
>>> > > one??? In whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd
>>> > > be hard pressed to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in
>>> > > it, except for things like Robins that have one tank inside the
>>> > > fuselage and a funny fuel filler in the side window..
>>>
>>> > > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not
>>> > > standard then people will be inclined to not use them, and then
>>> > > they presumably will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be
>>> > > prone to going tits up, whereas a stick has no moving parts to
>>> > > break down :-)
>>>
>>> > > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks
>>> > > and then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and
>>> > > have to rely on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>>>
>>> > I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them,
>>> > is we usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft
>>> > and usually find the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so
>>> > down. Unless you are pushing the minimums it's either full enough
>>> > it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you top off to be on the safe
>>> > side.
>>>
>>> Most of the Cessnas and Pipers I've flown can not be topped off, with
>>> passengers, and not be above MAUW.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Duncan
>>
>> That's right...
>>
>> Something us fat *******s have worse then the rest of you :-)
>>
>>
>
> And there are some small aircraft which have an MGLW lower than the MGTOW.
> Even if you can top off, you need to calculate how long before your
> planned
> landing to ensure you burn off sufficient fuel to get down to MGLW.
>
> --

No problem. Just stick the tanks.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
>> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
>> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one??? In
>> > whatever country you are from, that is. Here you'd be hard pressed
>> > to find an aircraft that doesn't have a stick in it, except for things
>> > like Robins that have one tank inside the fuselage and a funny fuel
>> > filler in the side window..
>>
>> > If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
>> > then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
>> > will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
>> > whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
>>
>> > So, I am thinking it is more sensible to always dip your tanks and
>> > then ignore the gauges than it is to not have a stick and have to rely
>> > on gauges or eyeballing the tank???
>>
>> I think the reason most of the people including me seldom use them, is we
>> usually top off before each take off. I fly rental aircraft and usually
>> find
>> the aircraft topped off or just an hour or so down. Unless you are
>> pushing
>> the minimums it's either full enough it's obviouse to the eyeball, or you
>> top off to be on the safe side.
>
>
> I rent, and have often found not much gas in the tanks.. Without
> dipping the tanks I can't tell if there's enough.. I am not likely to
> go wait in line to fill up if I am not going far, but we aren't going
> anywhere if we don't know how much is in there..
>

Most of the people I have rented from believe keeping the tanks full helps
reduce condensation and fuel related incidents. But agreed, not all do. But
that's what sticks are for. I was just pointing out why I seldom use one
because you asked.

[Maxwell]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "chris" > wrote:
>
>> If this is true, doesn't it follow that if sticks are not standard
>> then people will be inclined to not use them, and then they presumably
>> will begin to rely on gauges which seem to be prone to going tits up,
>> whereas a stick has no moving parts to break down :-)
>
> Nope.
>
> I don't dip my tanks and I don't rely on the gauges. The key word
> here is "rely.""
>

Chris, I don't know anyone that claims to rely on gages.

[Jose]

> Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one???

None of the aircraft I fly have sticks. For the tanks, that is. I
carry a stick myself but I don't have calibration marks for some of the
aircraft. The reading could be different depending on the slope of the
tarmac too.

Cherokees have a tab indicating an amount that's about 2/3 full. I
presume (but don't know for sure) that it is relatively accurate over a
wider range of tilt than other fuel levels.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Every PPL knows how to fly by instruments. It's REQUIRED.

Then why do some of them seem to be mystified by VORs?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Doesn't matter, you would last long enough to have to.

No doubt.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> Most of the people I have rented from believe keeping the tanks full
> helps reduce condensation and fuel related incidents. But agreed, not
> all do. But that's what sticks are for. I was just pointing out why I
> seldom use one because you asked.


Another good reason to keep them topped off is that it means when it is time
to fly any foreign object in the fuel has had time to settle. Or so I was
taught.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> Most of the people I have rented from believe keeping the tanks full
>> helps reduce condensation and fuel related incidents. But agreed, not
>> all do. But that's what sticks are for. I was just pointing out why I
>> seldom use one because you asked.
>
>
> Another good reason to keep them topped off is that it means when it is
> time to fly any foreign object in the fuel has had time to settle. Or so I
> was taught.

Never thought about it, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 2:29 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > Every PPL knows how to fly by instruments. It's REQUIRED.
>
> Then why do some of them seem to be mystified by VORs?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 2:16 am, Jose > wrote:
> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one???
>
> None of the aircraft I fly have sticks. For the tanks, that is. I
> carry a stick myself but I don't have calibration marks for some of the
> aircraft. The reading could be different depending on the slope of the
> tarmac too.
>
> Cherokees have a tab indicating an amount that's about 2/3 full. I
> presume (but don't know for sure) that it is relatively accurate over a
> wider range of tilt than other fuel levels.
>
> Jose
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I am not trying to be difficult here, but I just wondered... If they
don't have sticks, how do you know how many hours gas it's got without
using the gauges?? And if that's the case, you are assuming the
gauges are accurate. Without deciding on your preflight that it's got
a certain amount of fuel in it, how can you then know if the # of gals
on the gauge is actually in the tank?? I suppose if you always fly
with the tanks full it's OK, but you can't guarantee on every flight
it will have full tanks...

[chris[_1_]]

>
> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially over open
> country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night flight without
> an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument flight plan?
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 3, 9:49 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > The amount of instrument training a PPL student receives is sufficient
> > in theory to allow him/her to get the hell out of the weather. Its not
> > intended to allow you to press on in IMC. You need a lot more IF
> > training to be proficient enough to not kill yourself..
>
> I agree, based on what I've seen of instrument knowledge among alleged pilots
> here. But nothing prevents you from learning about instrument flight if you
> want to. Personally, I think instrument flight is highly interesting and it
> surprises me that so many VFR pilots do not seem to look into it. In fact, I
> learned how to fly on instruments before learning how to fly by hand, since
> early simulators were much better at simulating instrument flight than they
> were at simulating real flight (they still are, but now visual flight is much
> more realistic and good enough to be worth practicing).

Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
have even more trouble.


>
> > The last thing I'd be doing is diverting my attention from my scan to
> > read a chart when I would almost certainly be struggling keeping it
> > upright.
>
> The aircraft is no more difficult to maintain upright in zero visibility than
> it is in perfectly clear weather. There are no evil demons trying to turn it
> over just because you are in IMC. Set it straight and level and trim for it
> and then you can look at your chart.
>

If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
found out when I did my PPL IF training

> If there is someone in the right-hand seat, he or she can help a lot as well,
> although that's not an absolute requirement.
>
> > No, you get the hell out of the IMC
>
> If you don't know where you are, which way do you go to get out?

Back the way you came.. When flying near bad weather I keep looking
back to make sure my escape route is still open...


>
> If you've just plunged into IMC, you can make a U-turn and probably get back
> out. But if that doesn't work, you'll need a plan B.
>
> > Two things we are trained to do in the event of imminent IMC. 1)
> > Always make sure you have an escape route
> > 2) We practise precautionary landings. Stick the damn thing down in a
> > paddock rather than pressing on and killing yourself.
>
> The first makes sense. But how do you land in IMC?

Well, as I understand it, the IMC that refers to is the rising terrain
and lowering cloud base, or an approaching line of crap.. Which looks
like a grey curtain stretching across the horizon.. If you can't
escape you can set down in a field before it nails you

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 4, 2:16 am, Jose > wrote:
>> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
>> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
>> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one???
>>
>> None of the aircraft I fly have sticks. For the tanks, that is. I
>> carry a stick myself but I don't have calibration marks for some of the
>> aircraft. The reading could be different depending on the slope of the
>> tarmac too.
>>
>> Cherokees have a tab indicating an amount that's about 2/3 full. I
>> presume (but don't know for sure) that it is relatively accurate over a
>> wider range of tilt than other fuel levels.
>>
>> Jose
>> --
>> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
> I am not trying to be difficult here, but I just wondered... If they
> don't have sticks, how do you know how many hours gas it's got without
> using the gauges?? And if that's the case, you are assuming the
> gauges are accurate. Without deciding on your preflight that it's got
> a certain amount of fuel in it, how can you then know if the # of gals
> on the gauge is actually in the tank?? I suppose if you always fly
> with the tanks full it's OK, but you can't guarantee on every flight
> it will have full tanks...
>

Pilot supply shops sell calibrated stick type gages for popular aircraft
types.

Ref:
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?DID=19&Product_ID=1833&CATID=172

But if your tank is a predictable shape, it wouldn't be too difficult to
make you own. Obviously round or irregular shaped tanks would be more
difficult, but not impossible. If your aircraft has two tanks and a
selector, you could always run one dry and calibrate a stick as you fill the
take in stages. But all the sticks I have seen used in the US were bought at
different FBOs and pilot shops, and were designed and manufactured for the
particular aircraft.

I think the reason the aircraft where I rent don't have them, is that pilots
too often steal them. Same situation for fuel sampling equipment. I have to
carry my own.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

chris wrote:
>> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
>> over open country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit
>> night flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an
>> instrument flight plan?
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
> rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
> certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure


Does NZ not require you to be familier with the privileges that your license
grants you?

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> chris wrote:
>>> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
>>> over open country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit
>>> night flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an
>>> instrument flight plan?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marty Shapiro
>>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>>
>>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>>
>> I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
>> rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
>> certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>
>
> Does NZ not require you to be familier with the privileges that your
> license grants you?
>

Does it really matter if he has no desire to exceed it?

It's been so long since my written, there is a lot about my requirements and
privileges I'm not certain of, and a lot of things have changed. I know I am
within my limitiations flying in my desires areas, operaitons, and know I
would need to do a little refreshing if I ever plan to exceed them. But what
the heck.

[Marty Shapiro]

"chris" > wrote in
ps.com:

>
>>
>> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
>> over open
>> country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night flight
>> without an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument flight
>> plan?
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
> rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
> certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>

That sure sounds like a club rule. But even limiting you to 25nm
doesn't guarantee you will always have friendly terrain underneath you to
land in an emergency, especially on a dark night.

If you are properly rated for night flight, this seems like just
another senseless rule. I can see a club putting in a rule like this for
students and maybe even low time members, but for everyone?

My "favorite" club rule, and this was present at one time in the rules
for at least 3 clubs at a nearby airport, was the one prohibiting landings
on runways less than 3,000' long. This airport's only runway is 2,443'
long. I always wondered where the club expected members to return the
aircraft while complying with this rule.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> chris wrote:
>>>> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
>>>> over open country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit
>>>> night flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an
>>>> instrument flight plan?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marty Shapiro
>>>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>>>
>>>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>>>
>>> I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
>>> rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
>>> certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>>
>>
>> Does NZ not require you to be familier with the privileges that your
>> license grants you?
>>
>
> Does it really matter if he has no desire to exceed it?
>
> It's been so long since my written, there is a lot about my
> requirements and privileges I'm not certain of, and a lot of things
> have changed. I know I am within my limitiations flying in my desires
> areas, operaitons, and know I would need to do a little refreshing if
> I ever plan to exceed them. But what the heck.

If he doesn't know what the limitation is how can he know he is not
exceeding it?

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

chris wrote:
>
>I am not trying to be difficult here, but I just wondered... If they
>don't have sticks, how do you know how many hours gas it's got without
>using the gauges?? And if that's the case, you are assuming the
>gauges are accurate. Without deciding on your preflight that it's got
>a certain amount of fuel in it, how can you then know if the # of gals
>on the gauge is actually in the tank?? I suppose if you always fly
>with the tanks full it's OK, but you can't guarantee on every flight
>it will have full tanks...

Perfectly valid points. I'm one of those that tops off the tanks before a
flight, about 90% of the time. For that other 10%, I look in the tanks and
visually verify the amount of fuel. With a little experience, it's pretty
easy to come within a gallon or so on a Cherokee. When I owned a Cessna, I
used a stick. I didn't see any reliable way to visually verify the fuel in
the Cessna without climbing on top of the wing. When I was still working on
my PPL, my instructors had me stick a finger in the tank, but this was only
valid if verifying that the fuel level was very near full.

The gauges are never a subsitute for verifying the level of fuel in the
tanks (by stick or by sight). Many a pilot has ended up on an NTSB report
for assuming the gauges were accurate.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 8:46 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> chris wrote:
> >> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
> >> over open country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit
> >> night flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an
> >> instrument flight plan?
>
> >> --
> >> Marty Shapiro
> >> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> >> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> > I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
> > rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
> > certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>
> Does NZ not require you to be familier with the privileges that your license
> grants you?

I don't have a night rating, hence I am unsure what the rules are.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 8:02 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 2:16 am, Jose > wrote:
> >> > Hey guys.. I have noticed a bit of a theme with these posts.. It
> >> > seems people here are saying it's nice to have a stick to dip your
> >> > tanks. That makes it sound like it's not standard to have one???
>
> >> None of the aircraft I fly have sticks. For the tanks, that is. I
> >> carry a stick myself but I don't have calibration marks for some of the
> >> aircraft. The reading could be different depending on the slope of the
> >> tarmac too.
>
> >> Cherokees have a tab indicating an amount that's about 2/3 full. I
> >> presume (but don't know for sure) that it is relatively accurate over a
> >> wider range of tilt than other fuel levels.
>
> >> Jose
> >> --
> >> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> >> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
> > I am not trying to be difficult here, but I just wondered... If they
> > don't have sticks, how do you know how many hours gas it's got without
> > using the gauges?? And if that's the case, you are assuming the
> > gauges are accurate. Without deciding on your preflight that it's got
> > a certain amount of fuel in it, how can you then know if the # of gals
> > on the gauge is actually in the tank?? I suppose if you always fly
> > with the tanks full it's OK, but you can't guarantee on every flight
> > it will have full tanks...
>
> Pilot supply shops sell calibrated stick type gages for popular aircraft
> types.
>
> Ref:http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?DID=19&Product_ID=1833&CATID=172
>
> But if your tank is a predictable shape, it wouldn't be too difficult to
> make you own. Obviously round or irregular shaped tanks would be more
> difficult, but not impossible. If your aircraft has two tanks and a
> selector, you could always run one dry and calibrate a stick as you fill the
> take in stages. But all the sticks I have seen used in the US were bought at
> different FBOs and pilot shops, and were designed and manufactured for the
> particular aircraft.
>
> I think the reason the aircraft where I rent don't have them, is that pilots
> too often steal them. Same situation for fuel sampling equipment. I have to
> carry my own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Our fuel sampling equipment would get lost more times than it is
stolen. Ditto for fuel cards. I was trained that there is enough
time after swiping the card to walk back to the plane and put the card
inside, rather than leaving it on the fuel pump which is a recipe for
leaving it behind...

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 10:01 am, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> "chris" > wrote oups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
> >> over open
> >> country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night flight
> >> without an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument flight
> >> plan?
>
> >> --
> >> Marty Shapiro
> >> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> >> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> > I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
> > rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
> > certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>
> That sure sounds like a club rule. But even limiting you to 25nm
> doesn't guarantee you will always have friendly terrain underneath you to
> land in an emergency, especially on a dark night.
>
> If you are properly rated for night flight, this seems like just
> another senseless rule. I can see a club putting in a rule like this for
> students and maybe even low time members, but for everyone?
>
> My "favorite" club rule, and this was present at one time in the rules
> for at least 3 clubs at a nearby airport, was the one prohibiting landings
> on runways less than 3,000' long. This airport's only runway is 2,443'
> long. I always wondered where the club expected members to return the
> aircraft while complying with this rule.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, it sure doesn't guarantee friendly terrain. Which is why I
haven't got a night rating yet, I don't like that idea very much.

I heard once a good thing to do during a forced landing at night is to
turn your landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it
off again :-)

Another reason I haven't gone for my night rating yet is this part of
the country is fog city during the winter, and it's more often than
not foggy at the airport. I don't like the idea of coming back and
being stuck unable to land. Apparently the tower watches for signs of
fog forming and tells anyone in the area to get their asses back
pronto. If they miss out there is a set procedure to fly to a certain
major airport which doesn't get fogged in, which is 25 mins flight
time away at a certain altitude. Don't like that idea either,
really... Especially if I gotta work the next day...

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Does it really matter if he has no desire to exceed it?

How can he know if he desires to exceed something if he doesn't know what it
is?

> It's been so long since my written, there is a lot about my requirements and
> privileges I'm not certain of, and a lot of things have changed. I know I am
> within my limitiations flying in my desires areas, operaitons, and know I
> would need to do a little refreshing if I ever plan to exceed them. But what
> the heck.

Yes ... why stay current?

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.

Then PPLs don't know how to fly by instruments.

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

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
> did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
> moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
> from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
> over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
> the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
> have even more trouble.

I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your eye
on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's no
reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.

> If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
> found out when I did my PPL IF training

Leans or not, your instruments will tell you if you are in level flight.
Perhaps animals cannot ignore their intincts, but people can.

> Back the way you came.. When flying near bad weather I keep looking
> back to make sure my escape route is still open...

And what if it's not? What then?

Bad visibility doesn't always flow in from somewhere else. Sometimes it forms
right on the spot.

> Well, as I understand it, the IMC that refers to is the rising terrain
> and lowering cloud base, or an approaching line of crap.. Which looks
> like a grey curtain stretching across the horizon.. If you can't
> escape you can set down in a field before it nails you

What if you can't see the field?

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 11:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.
>
> Then PPLs don't know how to fly by instruments.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

We don't have the level of training of IFR rated pilots, that's for
sure!

We can stay wings level, turn, and climb.

That is flying on instruments in my book!

PPL instrument flying is designed to keep you upright while you get
the hell out of the crap you've just flown into. I don't need VOR to
do that.

[EridanMan]

> Who would install $2 million of avionics on
> a $90,000 aircraft?

God forbid you spend the 30 seconds required to lookup the price of a
TCAS system and save yourself from making such an embarrassingly
pointless question.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 11:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
> > did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
> > moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
> > from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
> > over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
> > the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
> > have even more trouble.
>
> I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your eye
> on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's no
> reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.

You just said I was to read my charts. That's not looking at the
instruments! Someone like me who has done the license requirements
and nothing since would probably have nothing but trouble if I took my
eyes off the instruments.
>
> > If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
> > found out when I did my PPL IF training
>
> Leans or not, your instruments will tell you if you are in level flight.
> Perhaps animals cannot ignore their intincts, but people can.
>

Comes down to training and practise. I have a little of the first and
not much of the second.

> > Back the way you came.. When flying near bad weather I keep looking
> > back to make sure my escape route is still open...
>
> And what if it's not? What then?

You keep an eye on the escape route and if it starts to close in you
get the hell out of there..

>
> Bad visibility doesn't always flow in from somewhere else. Sometimes it forms
> right on the spot.
>
> > Well, as I understand it, the IMC that refers to is the rising terrain
> > and lowering cloud base, or an approaching line of crap.. Which looks
> > like a grey curtain stretching across the horizon.. If you can't
> > escape you can set down in a field before it nails you
>
> What if you can't see the field?

If you are beneath lowering cloud base you are still visual, you just
can't proceed any further. If you see the **** approaching like a
grey curtain, you also have time to do something about it. You don't
just press on, fat dumb and happy, and fly into the ****.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your
> eye
> on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's
> no reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.

there are a number of things in an aircraft under IFR that might take
your attention away from the instruments and which are not confined within
a screen right in front of your eyes; in no particular order: checking
the outside temp and looking whether you are getting ice; I know you
read the forecast, but there are always surprises; dealing
with the passager who has just barfed into your charts; changing
frequencies; looking for clean charts and/or reading them; remember,
no 'pause' button; going through check lists; occasionally talking
to a real live person on the other side of the radio who gave
you a complicated clearance that is only superficially related to
what you asked, etc.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> > Who would install $2 million of avionics on
> > a $90,000 aircraft?
>
> God forbid you spend the 30 seconds required to lookup the price of a
> TCAS system and save yourself from making such an embarrassingly
> pointless question.

I didn't say anything about the cost of a TCAS system.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> chris writes:
>
>> Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.
>
> Then PPLs don't know how to fly by instruments.
>

Clueless as usual.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> chris writes:
>
>> Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
>> did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
>> moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
>> from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
>> over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
>> the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
>> have even more trouble.
>
> I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your
> eye
> on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's
> no
> reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.
>
>> If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
>> found out when I did my PPL IF training
>
> Leans or not, your instruments will tell you if you are in level flight.
> Perhaps animals cannot ignore their intincts, but people can.
>
>> Back the way you came.. When flying near bad weather I keep looking
>> back to make sure my escape route is still open...
>
> And what if it's not? What then?
>
> Bad visibility doesn't always flow in from somewhere else. Sometimes it
> forms
> right on the spot.
>
>> Well, as I understand it, the IMC that refers to is the rising terrain
>> and lowering cloud base, or an approaching line of crap.. Which looks
>> like a grey curtain stretching across the horizon.. If you can't
>> escape you can set down in a field before it nails you
>
> What if you can't see the field?
>

When was the last time you experienced vertigo while flying your desk?
You are HOPELESSLY clueless.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 1:39 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > chris writes:
>
> >> Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.
>
> > Then PPLs don't know how to fly by instruments.
>
> Clueless as usual.

Yup..

Flying on instruments to get yourself out of the **** is not the same
things as navigating on instruments.

[EridanMan]

On Apr 3, 2:42 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sylvain writes:
> > if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
> > the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
> > way or the other.
>
> Not if you know how to fly with instruments.

Knowing how to fly with instruments is not enough. The
rationalization that you are currently pushing is among _THE_ most
deadly in aviation.

Frankly, knowing how to fly with instruments is kinda a given to even
get in a cockpit. Its really trivially easy (how hard is it to keep
an artificial horizon level?)

Knowing how to fly with instruments and assuming that means you'll be
safe in IMC is one of the few near-guarantees of ending up an aviation
statistic. The term Sophomore applies more here than probably in any
other aspect of aviation.

Flying on instruments, for a few seconds at least, is trivial.
Operating an aircraft on instruments for anything more than a half
minute or so, is a different animal. What's worse, it doesn't lend
itself to a mistake. Fixate for just 30 seconds on any one thing and
there's a decent chance you'll be beyond recovery.

The other compounding factor is the fact that flying an aircraft is
like walking (or any other physical activity) in that many of the
actions and behaviors you do to respond to the aircraft very quickly
"program" themselves into your muscle memory... (this is actually
important and the mark of a good 'stick and rudder' pilot). Things
like adding the proper rudder in a turn, or correcting for a
turbulence-induced upset (or, as you get better, preventing sed upset
from occurring by feeling it in the yoke and countering it)... These
are all mechanical skills that get programmed by experience.

This is all well, good, and beneficial for good stick and rudder
flying, but the same adaptations that make for a pilot who can shrug
off a gusty crosswind on landing can become VERY dangerous if
incorrectly triggered in an IMC environment.

For example: oddly enough in my piper flying IMC, the act of bending
forward to switch my fuel tanks induces vertigo that feels precisely
like a left-bank turbulence upset. If I bend forward to switch tanks
in IMC while my left hand is on the yoke, my arm will INSTINCTUALLY
move to counter-act the upset. I have no more control over the action
than a baseball player does to close his mitt when he catches a
baseball. Hence, experience in IMC (with a safety pilot) has taught
me to hold the yoke with my right hand during a tank switch (which has
no such muscle memory), so that my brain does automatically attempt to
right the aircraft.

This is not ignorance on the part of the pilot, its simply trained
reflexes manifesting themselves in incorrect ways. The _ONLY_ thing
that can prepare a pilot to be able to control these reflexes and
understand how their personal body and training will respond in the
sensory-limited world of IMC is experience. Period.

Knowing what pictures to look for in the various gauges is laughably
trivial. Knowing what sort of sensations to expect, and what sort of
behavior they will invoke because of your training - THAT is what
keeps you alive IMC.

And thinking that knowing the procedures and gauges is all you need is
a terribly foolish and quite possibly fatal rationalization,
especially if you use to to justify pushing your personal weather/
visibility minimums to a situation where you stand the risk of being
caught inadvertently in clag.

[Marty Shapiro]

"chris" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Apr 4, 10:01 am, Marty Shapiro >
> wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote
>> oups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
>> >> over open
>> >> country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night
>> >> flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument
>> >> flight plan?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Marty Shapiro
>> >> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> >> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>>
>> > I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
>> > rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
>> > certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>>
>> That sure sounds like a club rule. But even limiting you to
>> 25nm
>> doesn't guarantee you will always have friendly terrain underneath
>> you to land in an emergency, especially on a dark night.
>>
>> If you are properly rated for night flight, this seems like
>> just
>> another senseless rule. I can see a club putting in a rule like this
>> for students and maybe even low time members, but for everyone?
>>
>> My "favorite" club rule, and this was present at one time in
>> the rules
>> for at least 3 clubs at a nearby airport, was the one prohibiting
>> landings on runways less than 3,000' long. This airport's only
>> runway is 2,443' long. I always wondered where the club expected
>> members to return the aircraft while complying with this rule.
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, it sure doesn't guarantee friendly terrain. Which is why I
> haven't got a night rating yet, I don't like that idea very much.
>
> I heard once a good thing to do during a forced landing at night is to
> turn your landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it
> off again :-)

Absolutely!

>
> Another reason I haven't gone for my night rating yet is this part of
> the country is fog city during the winter, and it's more often than
> not foggy at the airport. I don't like the idea of coming back and
> being stuck unable to land. Apparently the tower watches for signs of
> fog forming and tells anyone in the area to get their asses back
> pronto. If they miss out there is a set procedure to fly to a certain
> major airport which doesn't get fogged in, which is 25 mins flight
> time away at a certain altitude. Don't like that idea either,
> really... Especially if I gotta work the next day...
>

Wow, I thought I had made up some good excuses for missing work. :-)
That sure is good service you are getting from your tower. Sounds like you
have your own version of LA's "June Gloom".


--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> When was the last time you experienced vertigo while flying your desk?

I don't experience any motion at all while flying a non-motion sim. Thus, I
have no conditioned responses that would cause me to adjust the controls in
response to various physical sensations. I depend exclusively on instruments
and the view out the window. And that is pretty much as it should be, except
for coordinated turns and aerobatics.

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

[EridanMan]

On Apr 3, 7:35 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > When was the last time you experienced vertigo while flying your desk?
>
> I don't experience any motion at all while flying a non-motion sim. Thus, I
> have no conditioned responses that would cause me to adjust the controls in
> response to various physical sensations.

Sed "conditioned responses" are in fact tremendously valuable
adaptations of real-world pilots. A key part of remaining 'ahead of
the aircraft' so to speak is to train yourself to automatically
respond to upsets before they manifest into major deviations, this is
almost always a direct link between the tactile feedback you receive
from your yoke and your inner ear to muscles to provide control inputs
to the aircraft.

I would venture to say that making a gusty crosswind landing would be
impossible without them.

> I depend exclusively on instruments and the view out the window. > And that is pretty much as it should be.

Incorrect.

Its funny actually, I'm friends with several CFI's, and if there is
one constant I hear from them about 'simulator jockey' new-starts
(which included myself as a student, mind you) is that they actually
have a hard time divorcing themselves from the instruments and flying
on 'feel'... which means that they tend to take a lot longer to learn
to fly precisely, and often suffer from 'Pilot induced turbulence',
that is, they spend so looking and thinking about their responses,
that in the real dynamic world of aircraft flight their actions are
painfully slow and late- they're constantly 'chasing' the plane
instead of adapting too it.

For my first few lessons actually, I had a quite difficult time until
my instructor learned to keep reminding me to 'get out of the
cockpit', that is, adjust my personal frame of reference so that I
'was' the aircraft, instead of being a person sitting in an aircraft.
As soon as I learned to make this mental leap, my stick skills
improved light-years over just one or two flights.

Ironically, I've found that it was only after I learned to get out of
the cockpit and 'fly the plane' that I had the necessarily reflexes
and skills to 'fly the panel' when I started IFR training.

The 'conditioned responses' you so proudly claim to lack are part of
the fundamental skillsets of a pilot. Learning to fly IMC is learning
how to understand/control them in a sensory-limited and vertigo-
inducing experience.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 2:28 pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> "chris" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 10:01 am, Marty Shapiro >
> > wrote:
> >> "chris" > wrote
> >> oups.com:
>
> >> >> Will you fly with a new moon and CAVU weather, especially
> >> >> over open
> >> >> country? You've got the same problem. Does NZ permit night
> >> >> flight without an instrument rating and/or being on an instrument
> >> >> flight plan?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Marty Shapiro
> >> >> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> >> >> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> >> > I am not sure if it's law or just our club, but even with a night
> >> > rating you aren't meant to do cross country flights. Stay within a
> >> > certain distance of the club. I think it's 25nm but not sure
>
> >> That sure sounds like a club rule. But even limiting you to
> >> 25nm
> >> doesn't guarantee you will always have friendly terrain underneath
> >> you to land in an emergency, especially on a dark night.
>
> >> If you are properly rated for night flight, this seems like
> >> just
> >> another senseless rule. I can see a club putting in a rule like this
> >> for students and maybe even low time members, but for everyone?
>
> >> My "favorite" club rule, and this was present at one time in
> >> the rules
> >> for at least 3 clubs at a nearby airport, was the one prohibiting
> >> landings on runways less than 3,000' long. This airport's only
> >> runway is 2,443' long. I always wondered where the club expected
> >> members to return the aircraft while complying with this rule.
>
> >> --
> >> Marty Shapiro
> >> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> >> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, it sure doesn't guarantee friendly terrain. Which is why I
> > haven't got a night rating yet, I don't like that idea very much.
>
> > I heard once a good thing to do during a forced landing at night is to
> > turn your landing light on, if you don't like what you see, turn it
> > off again :-)
>
> Absolutely!
>
>
>
> > Another reason I haven't gone for my night rating yet is this part of
> > the country is fog city during the winter, and it's more often than
> > not foggy at the airport. I don't like the idea of coming back and
> > being stuck unable to land. Apparently the tower watches for signs of
> > fog forming and tells anyone in the area to get their asses back
> > pronto. If they miss out there is a set procedure to fly to a certain
> > major airport which doesn't get fogged in, which is 25 mins flight
> > time away at a certain altitude. Don't like that idea either,
> > really... Especially if I gotta work the next day...
>
> Wow, I thought I had made up some good excuses for missing work. :-)
> That sure is good service you are getting from your tower. Sounds like you
> have your own version of LA's "June Gloom".
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most of New Zealand doesn't suffer from fog excessively, but the
Waikato region where I am based, although much better than it used to
be, still has some bad fogs.. Some winters, most days the fog clears
about 1pm and rolls back in at 3pm...

We actually had fog two nights this past week, and summer has only
just gone!!!

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 4, 2:10 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:42 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Sylvain writes:
> > > if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
> > > the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
> > > way or the other.
>
> > Not if you know how to fly with instruments.
>
> Knowing how to fly with instruments is not enough. The
> rationalization that you are currently pushing is among _THE_ most
> deadly in aviation.
>
> Frankly, knowing how to fly with instruments is kinda a given to even
> get in a cockpit. Its really trivially easy (how hard is it to keep
> an artificial horizon level?)
>
> Knowing how to fly with instruments and assuming that means you'll be
> safe in IMC is one of the few near-guarantees of ending up an aviation
> statistic. The term Sophomore applies more here than probably in any
> other aspect of aviation.
>
> Flying on instruments, for a few seconds at least, is trivial.
> Operating an aircraft on instruments for anything more than a half
> minute or so, is a different animal. What's worse, it doesn't lend
> itself to a mistake. Fixate for just 30 seconds on any one thing and
> there's a decent chance you'll be beyond recovery.
>
> The other compounding factor is the fact that flying an aircraft is
> like walking (or any other physical activity) in that many of the
> actions and behaviors you do to respond to the aircraft very quickly
> "program" themselves into your muscle memory... (this is actually
> important and the mark of a good 'stick and rudder' pilot). Things
> like adding the proper rudder in a turn, or correcting for a
> turbulence-induced upset (or, as you get better, preventing sed upset
> from occurring by feeling it in the yoke and countering it)... These
> are all mechanical skills that get programmed by experience.
>
> This is all well, good, and beneficial for good stick and rudder
> flying, but the same adaptations that make for a pilot who can shrug
> off a gusty crosswind on landing can become VERY dangerous if
> incorrectly triggered in an IMC environment.
>
> For example: oddly enough in my piper flying IMC, the act of bending
> forward to switch my fuel tanks induces vertigo that feels precisely
> like a left-bank turbulence upset. If I bend forward to switch tanks
> in IMC while my left hand is on the yoke, my arm will INSTINCTUALLY
> move to counter-act the upset. I have no more control over the action
> than a baseball player does to close his mitt when he catches a
> baseball. Hence, experience in IMC (with a safety pilot) has taught
> me to hold the yoke with my right hand during a tank switch (which has
> no such muscle memory), so that my brain does automatically attempt to
> right the aircraft.
>
> This is not ignorance on the part of the pilot, its simply trained
> reflexes manifesting themselves in incorrect ways. The _ONLY_ thing
> that can prepare a pilot to be able to control these reflexes and
> understand how their personal body and training will respond in the
> sensory-limited world of IMC is experience. Period.
>
> Knowing what pictures to look for in the various gauges is laughably
> trivial. Knowing what sort of sensations to expect, and what sort of
> behavior they will invoke because of your training - THAT is what
> keeps you alive IMC.
>
> And thinking that knowing the procedures and gauges is all you need is
> a terribly foolish and quite possibly fatal rationalization,
> especially if you use to to justify pushing your personal weather/
> visibility minimums to a situation where you stand the risk of being
> caught inadvertently in clag.

I have come to the conclusion that although mx is wrong about a lot of
stuff, the danger is not to himself, as he has already told us he has
no intention of flying, but instead to those who actually do fly (I am
thinking of student pilots here) and read his posts and get dangerous
ideas from him.

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> Its funny actually, I'm friends with several CFI's, and if there is
> one constant I hear from them about 'simulator jockey' new-starts
> (which included myself as a student, mind you) is that they actually
> have a hard time divorcing themselves from the instruments and flying
> on 'feel'... which means that they tend to take a lot longer to learn
> to fly precisely, and often suffer from 'Pilot induced turbulence',
> that is, they spend so looking and thinking about their responses,
> that in the real dynamic world of aircraft flight their actions are
> painfully slow and late- they're constantly 'chasing' the plane
> instead of adapting too it.

If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.

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

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > Using a VOR is not part of what we learn for PPL instrument flying.
>
> Then PPLs don't know how to fly by instruments.

A min of 5hrs (IIRC) is spent learning to fly by instruments. Not
instruments to guide one to a destination - but instruments to keep the
plane upright - basically, straight and level. Here in NZ I was taught
to do this on a limited panel too (I would imagine that's pretty
standard anywhere).

I thought it was great fun - I extended my limited 'IFR' time w' my
instructor, asking him to put the plane into unusual attitudes and then
I'd recover under the helmet. We even did spin recovery while under the
helmet. I loved it.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your
> > eye
> > on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's
> > no reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.
>
> there are a number of things in an aircraft under IFR that might take
> your attention away from the instruments and which are not confined within
> a screen right in front of your eyes; in no particular order: checking
> the outside temp and looking whether you are getting ice; I know you
> read the forecast, but there are always surprises; dealing
> with the passager who has just barfed into your charts; changing
> frequencies; looking for clean charts and/or reading them; remember,
> no 'pause' button; going through check lists; occasionally talking
> to a real live person on the other side of the radio who gave
> you a complicated clearance that is only superficially related to
> what you asked, etc.

Yeah I won't forget the day I was on a flight from Christchurch (NZCH)
to Omarama (NZOA) with 1 pax OB. I'd got my mate Marty to take the
controls while I sorted my next position report (head burried in the
charts and my paperwork etc). At the time we were below 3000' AGL and
so not that far below the cloud layer.

Well when I looked up, we were IN THE SOUP. 'course I near shat myself
(as well as wondering why the hell Marty had said nothing at all to me).
I was also aware of the large mountains not that far in front of us.

So in fairly quick sequence it was:
"I have control".
Use the intruments.
Keep the wings level.
Get a descent going.

And while I was telling Marty to keep an eye out the window for the
ground, we pretty much broke out of it at that time.

We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.

Since then I keep a close eye on what my 'co-pilot's' doing. I know
they like to have a go at it - hey it's fun - but I ensure it's taking
pressure off me and not putting it on (or leading us in that direction).

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> chris writes:
>
> > Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
> > did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
> > moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
> > from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
> > over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
> > the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
> > have even more trouble.
>
> I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your eye
> on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's no
> reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.
>
> > If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
> > found out when I did my PPL IF training
>
> Leans or not, your instruments will tell you if you are in level flight.
> Perhaps animals cannot ignore their intincts, but people can.

If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?

If not, wny not? - you can *see* what you're meant to do!

Anyway, point is (given you try that) you now know what a real pilot
experiences (this false inner ear vertigo thing).

You've *never* experienced it in yer simulator.

And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?

--
Duncan

[Ron Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your
>> eye
>> on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's
>> no reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.
>
> there are a number of things in an aircraft under IFR that might take
> your attention away from the instruments and which are not confined within
> a screen right in front of your eyes; in no particular order: checking
> the outside temp and looking whether you are getting ice;

Don't forget, Checking to see if you have entered VMC and their might
be traffic to spot.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
> exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.
>

No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
in real flight.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 4, 2:10 pm, "EridanMan" > wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2:42 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > Sylvain writes:
>> > > if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
>> > > the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
>> > > way or the other.
>>
>> > Not if you know how to fly with instruments.
>>
>> Knowing how to fly with instruments is not enough. The
>> rationalization that you are currently pushing is among _THE_ most
>> deadly in aviation.
>>
>> Frankly, knowing how to fly with instruments is kinda a given to even
>> get in a cockpit. Its really trivially easy (how hard is it to keep
>> an artificial horizon level?)
>>
>> Knowing how to fly with instruments and assuming that means you'll be
>> safe in IMC is one of the few near-guarantees of ending up an aviation
>> statistic. The term Sophomore applies more here than probably in any
>> other aspect of aviation.
>>
>> Flying on instruments, for a few seconds at least, is trivial.
>> Operating an aircraft on instruments for anything more than a half
>> minute or so, is a different animal. What's worse, it doesn't lend
>> itself to a mistake. Fixate for just 30 seconds on any one thing and
>> there's a decent chance you'll be beyond recovery.
>>
>> The other compounding factor is the fact that flying an aircraft is
>> like walking (or any other physical activity) in that many of the
>> actions and behaviors you do to respond to the aircraft very quickly
>> "program" themselves into your muscle memory... (this is actually
>> important and the mark of a good 'stick and rudder' pilot). Things
>> like adding the proper rudder in a turn, or correcting for a
>> turbulence-induced upset (or, as you get better, preventing sed upset
>> from occurring by feeling it in the yoke and countering it)... These
>> are all mechanical skills that get programmed by experience.
>>
>> This is all well, good, and beneficial for good stick and rudder
>> flying, but the same adaptations that make for a pilot who can shrug
>> off a gusty crosswind on landing can become VERY dangerous if
>> incorrectly triggered in an IMC environment.
>>
>> For example: oddly enough in my piper flying IMC, the act of bending
>> forward to switch my fuel tanks induces vertigo that feels precisely
>> like a left-bank turbulence upset. If I bend forward to switch tanks
>> in IMC while my left hand is on the yoke, my arm will INSTINCTUALLY
>> move to counter-act the upset. I have no more control over the action
>> than a baseball player does to close his mitt when he catches a
>> baseball. Hence, experience in IMC (with a safety pilot) has taught
>> me to hold the yoke with my right hand during a tank switch (which has
>> no such muscle memory), so that my brain does automatically attempt to
>> right the aircraft.
>>
>> This is not ignorance on the part of the pilot, its simply trained
>> reflexes manifesting themselves in incorrect ways. The _ONLY_ thing
>> that can prepare a pilot to be able to control these reflexes and
>> understand how their personal body and training will respond in the
>> sensory-limited world of IMC is experience. Period.
>>
>> Knowing what pictures to look for in the various gauges is laughably
>> trivial. Knowing what sort of sensations to expect, and what sort of
>> behavior they will invoke because of your training - THAT is what
>> keeps you alive IMC.
>>
>> And thinking that knowing the procedures and gauges is all you need is
>> a terribly foolish and quite possibly fatal rationalization,
>> especially if you use to to justify pushing your personal weather/
>> visibility minimums to a situation where you stand the risk of being
>> caught inadvertently in clag.
>
> I have come to the conclusion that although mx is wrong about a lot of
> stuff, the danger is not to himself, as he has already told us he has
> no intention of flying, but instead to those who actually do fly (I am
> thinking of student pilots here) and read his posts and get dangerous
> ideas from him.
>

Indeed. This is one of the most difficult concepts for a student pilot to
fully realize, and in reduced visibility situations at night can be just as
confusing, although seldom as deadly. Until you actually try to fly an real
aircraft in IMC, you will never fully realize the danger. A lot of new and
student pilots make the same mistake MC. But the reality is, it's very
difficult, has to be learned, and can't possibly be simulated.

[EridanMan]

> If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
> exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I did not say it was a consequence of following instruments
exclusively, I said it was a consequence of attempting to follow
instruments at all before you master simple aircraft control, and a
downside of being an experienced simmer before start your training.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
> and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
> he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
> the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
> Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.

Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

There's nothing special about me.

> You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
> that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
> the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
> in real flight.

You need to get away from highly emotional personal quarrels and back to the
topics at hand. You don't want to fail that next medical.

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

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> I did not say it was a consequence of following instruments
> exclusively, I said it was a consequence of attempting to follow
> instruments at all before you master simple aircraft control, and a
> downside of being an experienced simmer before start your training.

In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
> sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
> up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?

If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.

But in reality, aircraft do not spin round and round for minutes at a time
just because they are in clouds.

> If not, wny not? - you can *see* what you're meant to do!

A better experiment would be to see if I could _steer_ straight after a spin.
When you fly an aircraft, you move controls--you don't actually walk (which is
a much more complex activity). It's almost impossible to walk with disturbed
equilibrium, because the primary source of information--even with extensive
visual cues--is the inner ear. This is not true of instrument flight, where
the primary source of information is instruments, and a disturbance in
equilibrium, which disorienting, is not an absolute obstacle to maintaining
control.

It's a bit like the difference between being dizzy in a chair and being dizzy
while standing.

> And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?

I haven't tried it.

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

[EridanMan]

> In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
> aircraft.

My point exactly (almost verbatim).

Mastering control of the aircraft involves developing the 'conditioned
responses' you mentioned earlier. Learning to fly IFR involves
learning to adapt those conditioned responses to the IFR environment.

Simply knowing what to look for on the gauges is _NOT_ enough, and I
think we would all appreciate if you would stop asserting such. It is
not only incorrect, is is a deadly rationalization that has killed
many pilots.

If you want to fly IMC, you need to learn how to adapt your piloting
skills to flying the panel, that requires regular practice. period.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
>> sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
>> up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?
>
> If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.

I call bull**** on this one. No you can't. Yes you do have an instrument
that shows you how to walk straight: your eyeballs (we won't do the
experiment in the dark at first) looking at, say, the road or the walls
around you or other fixed objects of your choice. An NO, emphatically,
you won't be able to walk straight, or even stand up. There are actually
neat and fun devices designed to do just that: spin you around and around
for a while (there was one at Beale AFB where I did the high altitude
training, I am sure you can find something similar elsewhere)

> But in reality, aircraft do not spin round and round for minutes at a time
> just because they are in clouds.

Not minutes at a time, but HOURS at a time depending on how long
the flight in the clouds lasts. Not quite spinning like the fun training
device I was mentioning, but the effect is just as good; better actually.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> Mastering control of the aircraft involves developing the 'conditioned
> responses' you mentioned earlier. Learning to fly IFR involves
> learning to adapt those conditioned responses to the IFR environment.

No, learning to fly IFR means _ignoring_ those conditioned responses, and
flying exclusively based on what the instruments say.

Furthermore, the conditioned responses vary by aircraft; learning one is not
terribly useful for another. And even the more general motion cues are
unreliable.

Ultimately, sensation is almost useless for flying. The real information
comes from visual cues (under VFR) and/or instruments (under IFR). If you
have neither of this, you're headed towards an appointment with destiny, no
matter how much practice you have with physical sensations.

Conversely, you _can_ fly without the sensations, as long as you have visual
cues and/or instruments.

And, if you have sensations _and_ visual cues _and_ instruments, the ones to
trust first are the instruments, followed by visual cues. The sensations are
not trustworthy, except to help you make coordinated turns or in a few other
very isolated circumstances.

> Simply knowing what to look for on the gauges is _NOT_ enough, and I
> think we would all appreciate if you would stop asserting such.

People fly safely and successfully every day just by looking at those gauges.
Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on sensations.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> I call bull**** on this one. No you can't. Yes you do have an instrument
> that shows you how to walk straight: your eyeballs (we won't do the
> experiment in the dark at first) looking at, say, the road or the walls
> around you or other fixed objects of your choice. An NO, emphatically,
> you won't be able to walk straight, or even stand up. There are actually
> neat and fun devices designed to do just that: spin you around and around
> for a while (there was one at Beale AFB where I did the high altitude
> training, I am sure you can find something similar elsewhere)

You're probably right. I guess that rules out piloting an aircraft in an
unbraced standing position, then.

> Not minutes at a time, but HOURS at a time depending on how long
> the flight in the clouds lasts. Not quite spinning like the fun training
> device I was mentioning, but the effect is just as good; better actually.

But you don't have to walk in an aircraft.

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

[Maxwell]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
>>> sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
>>> up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?
>>
>> If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.
>
> I call bull**** on this one. No you can't. Yes you do have an instrument
> that shows you how to walk straight: your eyeballs (we won't do the
> experiment in the dark at first) looking at, say, the road or the walls
> around you or other fixed objects of your choice. An NO, emphatically,
> you won't be able to walk straight, or even stand up. There are actually
> neat and fun devices designed to do just that: spin you around and around
> for a while (there was one at Beale AFB where I did the high altitude
> training, I am sure you can find something similar elsewhere)
>
>> But in reality, aircraft do not spin round and round for minutes at a
>> time
>> just because they are in clouds.
>
> Not minutes at a time, but HOURS at a time depending on how long
> the flight in the clouds lasts. Not quite spinning like the fun training
> device I was mentioning, but the effect is just as good; better
> actually.
>

Feel free to call bull**** on all his posts, including the one's you haven't
wasted time reading. You will still be right 99% of the time or better.

All his attendance on this post is proving, is that he still doesn't get it.
No matter what he has read, either here or anywhere else on disorientation,
he can't even understand the concept. Even with a dozen or so people, trying
to explain it a dozen different ways, his is just simply no capable of
understanding it.

Really magnifiys his ignorance on his ability to learn to fly an aircraft
through simulation doesn't it.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> EridanMan writes:
> No, learning to fly IFR means _ignoring_ those conditioned responses, and
> flying exclusively based on what the instruments say.
>
> Furthermore, the conditioned responses vary by aircraft; learning one is
> not
> terribly useful for another. And even the more general motion cues are
> unreliable.
>
> Ultimately, sensation is almost useless for flying. The real information
> comes from visual cues (under VFR) and/or instruments (under IFR). If you
> have neither of this, you're headed towards an appointment with destiny,
> no
> matter how much practice you have with physical sensations.
>
> Conversely, you _can_ fly without the sensations, as long as you have
> visual
> cues and/or instruments.
>
> And, if you have sensations _and_ visual cues _and_ instruments, the ones
> to
> trust first are the instruments, followed by visual cues. The sensations
> are
> not trustworthy, except to help you make coordinated turns or in a few
> other
> very isolated circumstances.
>
>
> People fly safely and successfully every day just by looking at those
> gauges.
> Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on sensations.
>


What a clueless troll!!!!!!

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> I call bull**** on this one. No you can't. Yes you do have an
>> instrument
>> that shows you how to walk straight: your eyeballs (we won't do the
>> experiment in the dark at first) looking at, say, the road or the walls
>> around you or other fixed objects of your choice. An NO, emphatically,
>> you won't be able to walk straight, or even stand up. There are
>> actually
>> neat and fun devices designed to do just that: spin you around and
>> around
>> for a while (there was one at Beale AFB where I did the high altitude
>> training, I am sure you can find something similar elsewhere)
>
> You're probably right. I guess that rules out piloting an aircraft in an
> unbraced standing position, then.
>
>> Not minutes at a time, but HOURS at a time depending on how long
>> the flight in the clouds lasts. Not quite spinning like the fun training
>> device I was mentioning, but the effect is just as good; better
>> actually.
>
> But you don't have to walk in an aircraft.
>

Take your meds and get back to flying your desk.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 5, 6:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
> > If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
> > sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
> > up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?
>
> If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.
>
> But in reality, aircraft do not spin round and round for minutes at a time
> just because they are in clouds.
>
> > If not, wny not? - you can *see* what you're meant to do!
>
> A better experiment would be to see if I could _steer_ straight after a spin.
> When you fly an aircraft, you move controls--you don't actually walk (which is
> a much more complex activity). It's almost impossible to walk with disturbed
> equilibrium, because the primary source of information--even with extensive
> visual cues--is the inner ear. This is not true of instrument flight, where
> the primary source of information is instruments, and a disturbance in
> equilibrium, which disorienting, is not an absolute obstacle to maintaining
> control.
>
> It's a bit like the difference between being dizzy in a chair and being dizzy
> while standing.
>
> > And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?
>
> I haven't tried it.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Now you're just being a cock..

[Jay Beckman]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 5, 6:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> I haven't tried it.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Now you're just being a cock..
>

Only now?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
> > and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
> > he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
> > the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
> > Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.
>
> Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
> helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
> you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?

Did you not read my other post (about having fun under the helmet)? :)
Regardless, it was nowhere near 90 seconds, more like ten. We were
reasonably level (less than 30 degrees, probably 15) when I got control.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
> > sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers :) - and then get you to stand
> > up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?
>
> If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.

You have eyes don't you? They work?

<snip>

> > And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?
>
> I haven't tried it.

You really do need to go through the syllabus.

--
Duncan

[EridanMan]

*sigh*

I had yet again fooled myself into believing that you were something
other than a simulator Fanboy irrationally raving about his chosen
hobby... That somehow, if I managed to express myself in a way you
could relate to, you would be interested in actually learning
something, instead of just carrying on about how anything your
simulators don't portray well is irrelevant.

I used to see this kind of behavior constantly back when I spent time
on photography boards... "X is irrelevant/not useful, so its not a big
deal that Y doesn't have it!"

For your information, flying an aircraft is about synthesizing ALL
available sensory input in an attempt to keep in constant
understanding of the aircraft's state at that moment, that includes
motion, visual cues, and instrument readings- its all tremendously
important.

To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
movements feel.

> The sensations are not trustworthy, except to help you make
> coordinated turns or in a few other very isolated circumstances.

Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
aircraft's attitude and energy state. When an IFR pilot begins a 500
FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be. (Just as in
a car, a driver chooses the amount of braking pressure required to
stop the car based on his sensory memory of how much braking force is
necessary to stop in time for the light).

> Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on
> sensations.

Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
one source of information available to them, whether it by
instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio. A safe and
prudent pilot uses all information available to him, and knows how and
when to crosscheck and account for conflicting information. Gauges
Fail, Vertigo confuses, Haze obscures- only a fool would make a rash
generalization that "Only Use X, then only Use Y". It's retarded.

I am a former Simulator Jockey (FS8/Xplane 7). I know first hand the
confidence you feel because of your simulator experience. I know
first hand how that confidence screwed up the first few hours of my
flight training, as I constantly chased needles instead of bothering
to learn to positively control the aircraft. I have first hand
experience flying VFR. I have first hand experience flying IMC.

You have none of this. You know nothing but your pride in your
simulator experience, and your stubborn refusal to consider that sed.
experience is anything but the pinnacle of aviation knowledge, and
you'll argue until your blue in the face about it.

Just like some other fools will argue themselves blue in the face
about Canon Vs. Nikon, SLR vs Rangefinder, whatever...

Its a shame to see such intelligence wasted on such inane
fundamentalist fanboy nonsense. But I've had enough of it.

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> For your information, flying an aircraft is about synthesizing ALL
> available sensory input in an attempt to keep in constant
> understanding of the aircraft's state at that moment, that includes
> motion, visual cues, and instrument readings- its all tremendously
> important.

Motion is so unreliable that I wonder why anyone would try to integrate it
except under very specific circumstances.

> To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
> master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
> movements feel.

Why? Autopilots fly IFR without any sensation of how the aircraft is moving,
and without visual cues.

> Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
> flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
> aircraft's attitude and energy state.

All of these can be done successfully with instruments alone.

> When an IFR pilot begins a 500
> FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
> aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
> that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be.

Are you sure?

Does this mean that if he is disoriented and cannot feel the "correct
descent," he cannot descend?

> Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
> one source of information available to them, whether it by
> instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio.

Not so. In good weather, one can fly for a considerable time using visual
cues alone. Under any circumstances, one can fly indefinitely using
instruments alone. But one cannot fly for more than a minute or two using
physical sensations alone.

> I am a former Simulator Jockey (FS8/Xplane 7). I know first hand the
> confidence you feel because of your simulator experience. I know
> first hand how that confidence screwed up the first few hours of my
> flight training, as I constantly chased needles instead of bothering
> to learn to positively control the aircraft. I have first hand
> experience flying VFR. I have first hand experience flying IMC.

You are not me.

> Its a shame to see such intelligence wasted on such inane
> fundamentalist fanboy nonsense. But I've had enough of it.

Then perhaps you can skip the comments about me and either discuss the topic
or abstain.

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

[EridanMan]

> Motion is so unreliable that I wonder why anyone would try to integrate it
> except under very specific circumstances.

Except it's not. The simple act of braking a car for a light depends
highly on the sense of motion, and humans manage that feat hundreds of
millions of times a day with a relatively low failure rate. Flaring
an aircraft on landing on the other hand is almost entirely dependent
on sense of motion. Sense of motion can be tremendously powerful, as
long as you understand how it can also be fallible.

> > To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
> > master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
> > movements feel.
>
> Why? Autopilots fly IFR without any sensation of how the aircraft is moving,
> and without visual cues.

We are not autopilots, we are human beings. Human beings do not have
the mathematical capacity to make the quick, precise calculations that
are trivial to a computer, what we can do is synthesize a large number
of sensory inputs and make conclusions based on them far in excess of
a computers capacity for wrote logical calculation.

The human sense of balance/motion is a tremendously powerful, and
tremendously fast, and very quick to adapt... thousands of generations
of bipedal travel are to thank for that. It would by stupid for us
not to take advantage of it.

Again as long as we, as pilots, understand when it can be tricked, and
how to overcome it.

> > Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
> > flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
> > aircraft's attitude and energy state.
>
> All of these can be done successfully with instruments alone.

Landing flares simply cannot. I have a friend who is an Ex military
pilot, his last assignment was flying drones for the navy- he was
mentioning how the landing gear on the drones needs to be many orders
of magnitude stronger than for piloted aircraft simply because without
the sense of motion, landings flares are nearly impossible to judge
correctly. For the rest of the flight, he managed without any sense
of motion, but he mentioned it was one of the hardest assignments of
his career, far harder than, say, landing a sea-king on a pitching
destroyer's deck. And even then, the only way he managed to fly
precisely remotely was by visualizing and imagining the missing
sensations as he went.

> > When an IFR pilot begins a 500
> > FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
> > aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
> > that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be.
>
> Are you sure?

Yes.

> Does this mean that if he is disoriented and cannot feel the "correct
> descent," he cannot descend?

Disorientation is generally along very specific attitudes and, with
practice, can be very easily ignored. That said, talk to any
instrument student about their first attempted instrument approach in
IMC in heavy turbulence... until the proper filters are in place, in
fact, doing the most simple of piloting tasks can seem damn near
impossible.

> > Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
> > one source of information available to them, whether it by
> > instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio.
>
> Not so. In good weather, one can fly for a considerable time using visual
> cues alone.

Tell me please how any pilot in the aircraft is supposed to fly with
'visual cues alone'... The motion is there, and whether or not
they're consciously aware of it, they're responding to it.

> Under any circumstances, one can fly indefinitely using
> instruments alone.

I understand why you believe this, but it is arrogant, sophomoric and
incorrect. Period. Computers can, yes... but we are not computers.

> But one cannot fly for more than a minute or two using
> physical sensations alone.

No argument there... but I would never begin to say that using
physical sensations alone was a wise course of action. Physical
sensations, while very powerful and precise, "fall out of trim" _very_
easily, unless 'reset' by some other sensory outside reference.

This does not make them unreliable, it is just a constraint on their
use that a pilot must understand.

> You are not me.

No, I'm not. However, I am someone with a shared experience. And
seeing as you are either unable or unwilling to take your experience
to the level that I have, you might find that if you listen to what I
have to say, I might just be able to express that further experience
in a way that helps you understand what you're missing.

When I first started flying, I too was utterly baffled at how any
pilot with even a modicum of intelligence could allow a graveyard
spiral to develop. Attitude Gyro's are trivial to read, the
situation is both unique and obvious, both by instrument readings and
other sensory inputs (sound and motion forces). I was just as cocky
as you are - come on, how hard is it to read your instruments?

Only now, after first had experience, have I begun to realize that the
graveyard spiral isn't the mark of an ignoramus of a pilot, it is a
particular situation brought about by a myriad of circumstances that
pits a pilot's own training in operating an aircraft against his
survival. I've even seen myself falling into the trap.

This is a tremendously powerful realization, and one that I think all
pilots should have. Sitting here, spouting off to pilots about how
'easy it is if you only follow your instruments' is not only
incorrect, its downright irresponsible and dangerous. You do _NOT_
understand the mechanisms and manner of training that pilots receive,
you have no concept of the full complexity of factors that can lead a
pilot, in the moment, to abandon something they 'know' is true in vain
attempt to bring their senses into order. Simply put, the experiences
involved are beyond verbal portrayal.

Sitting here spouting that 'its so easy' only serves to make those who
live in the fantasy rationalization that 'it could never happen to me,
I'm smart enough to know better' more likely to put themselves in a
situation where they get killed.

This is especially irritating coming from someone who I'm absolutely
certain (through my own personal experience) would not be able to
maintain a constant altitude or heading, VFR or IFR, in a real
airplane. Not because you're not intelligent, not because you don't
know how, but simply because "knowing" how intellectually is not
sufficient.

> Then perhaps you can skip the comments about me and either discuss the topic
> or abstain.

I wish it was that easy.

You frustrate me because I (perhaps incorrectly) recognize shadows of
my own personal demons in you. You are the modern manifestation of a
long-ago miserable period in my life where I walled myself off with
arrogant notions of intellectual superiority, oblivious to the value
and necessity of others' experience.

[george]

On Apr 3, 9:10 am, "chris" > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:37 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On 2007-04-02, chris > wrote:
> > >> As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
> > >> that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
> > >> having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
> > >> things I actually need definitely work.
>
> > > You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
> > > use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
> > > VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
> > > cross checks).
>
> > > The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
> > > not be left out of that learning!
>
> > You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
> > Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
> > useless.
>
> I dunno about other countries, but especially over the nastier parts
> of NZ there aren't a whole lot of navaids, period. VOR's are nice for
> making sure you are on track for one of the main centres airports, but
> there's a lot of airfields around the place with no navaids, and even
> going to one with a VOR, quite often high terrain and low weather
> makes them useless for a VFR pilot


Back in the days of hand tunable multiband recievers I used to tune
in on the radio station 2ZB and fly to the strongest signal which
would put me near enough to Petone.

[Mxsmanic]

EridanMan writes:

> Except it's not. The simple act of braking a car for a light depends
> highly on the sense of motion, and humans manage that feat hundreds of
> millions of times a day with a relatively low failure rate.

That's because the sensations associated with driving a car are reliable;
those associated with flying are not (for the most part).

> Flaring an aircraft on landing on the other hand is almost entirely
> dependent on sense of motion.

Autoland systems seem to manage it without a sense of motion.

> We are not autopilots, we are human beings. Human beings do not have
> the mathematical capacity to make the quick, precise calculations that
> are trivial to a computer, what we can do is synthesize a large number
> of sensory inputs and make conclusions based on them far in excess of
> a computers capacity for wrote logical calculation.

Human beings manage to do it in simulation without motion, so it's hardly
beyond their capacity.

> The human sense of balance/motion is a tremendously powerful, and
> tremendously fast, and very quick to adapt ...

And phenomenally unreliable, for types of motiong for which it was not
designed (such as flight).

> Again as long as we, as pilots, understand when it can be tricked, and
> how to overcome it.

It can only be tricked when you're in the air. It's very reliable on the
ground.

> Landing flares simply cannot.

Autoland systems do it. You can do it on a simulator as well.

> I have a friend who is an Ex military
> pilot, his last assignment was flying drones for the navy- he was
> mentioning how the landing gear on the drones needs to be many orders
> of magnitude stronger than for piloted aircraft simply because without
> the sense of motion, landings flares are nearly impossible to judge
> correctly. For the rest of the flight, he managed without any sense
> of motion, but he mentioned it was one of the hardest assignments of
> his career, far harder than, say, landing a sea-king on a pitching
> destroyer's deck. And even then, the only way he managed to fly
> precisely remotely was by visualizing and imagining the missing
> sensations as he went.

He originally trained on something very different, and had difficulty
adapting.

> Disorientation is generally along very specific attitudes and, with
> practice, can be very easily ignored.

Just about any attitude can cause it. Human beings are extremely poor at
integrating accelerations to derive other components of movement. They can
tell that they are being accelerated in one direction or another, but they
judge the magnitude of the acceleration poorly, and they are even worse at
determining the final motion after the acceleration.

> Tell me please how any pilot in the aircraft is supposed to fly with
> 'visual cues alone' ...

By looking out the window.

> The motion is there, and whether or not
> they're consciously aware of it, they're responding to it.

Not in a non-moving simulator, and yet pilots still manage to fly in that
case.

> I understand why you believe this, but it is arrogant, sophomoric and
> incorrect.

It's a day-to-day reality. It's possible to fly with instruments exclusively,
if you have the right instruments.

> Computers can, yes... but we are not computers.

We are better than computers in some respects. Computers are fast, but
primitive.

> Physical
> sensations, while very powerful and precise, "fall out of trim" _very_
> easily, unless 'reset' by some other sensory outside reference.

If they rapidly fall out of trim, how can they also be precise?

About the only thing you can depend on with sensations is that they will tell
you that something has changed. That's it. And even then, it has to change
beyond a certain speed, because slow change cannot be detected.

> This is a tremendously powerful realization, and one that I think all
> pilots should have. Sitting here, spouting off to pilots about how
> 'easy it is if you only follow your instruments' is not only
> incorrect, its downright irresponsible and dangerous. You do _NOT_
> understand the mechanisms and manner of training that pilots receive,
> you have no concept of the full complexity of factors that can lead a
> pilot, in the moment, to abandon something they 'know' is true in vain
> attempt to bring their senses into order. Simply put, the experiences
> involved are beyond verbal portrayal.

My impression is increasingly that pilots have a constrained subset of
experiences and training upon which they base a very broad set of conclusions.
While the conclusions may be valid as long as the original constraints are
respected, they can be wildly incorrect when applied to anything outside those
constraints.

> Sitting here spouting that 'its so easy' only serves to make those who
> live in the fantasy rationalization that 'it could never happen to me,
> I'm smart enough to know better' more likely to put themselves in a
> situation where they get killed.

Anyone who flies based on what he reads on USENET already has a cognitive
deficit great enough to endanger his safety.

> This is especially irritating coming from someone who I'm absolutely
> certain (through my own personal experience) would not be able to
> maintain a constant altitude or heading, VFR or IFR, in a real
> airplane. Not because you're not intelligent, not because you don't
> know how, but simply because "knowing" how intellectually is not
> sufficient.

Maybe. Perhaps some day I'll try it, and then we shall see.

> You frustrate me because I (perhaps incorrectly) recognize shadows of
> my own personal demons in you. You are the modern manifestation of a
> long-ago miserable period in my life where I walled myself off with
> arrogant notions of intellectual superiority, oblivious to the value
> and necessity of others' experience.

What I am is the product of having been burned on countless occasions by
people who claimed to be competent and expert and knowledgeable and turned out
to be far more clueless than I am. Today, people must prove things to me in
the most basic and irrefutable ways. I trust no one, and I believe no one,
without proof. Credentials mean nothing, and nobody gets respect by default.

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

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 5, 9:31 am, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Apr 5, 6:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> I haven't tried it.
>
> >> --
> >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> > Now you're just being a cock..
>
> Only now?
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ

True..

I am getting real sick of this ****.. He once again is becoming
insistant that he's right, even though once again everyone else is
telling him he's wrong. The old mx refrain of "qualifications don't
mean anything and I don't respect anyone by default" is just another
way of saying "I won't listen to you even if you're qualified to give
an opinion, and I won't believe you unless you agree with me"

I was going to say that this guy is turning into a right f**kknuckle,
but then a quick google search shows that in various newsgroups they
were real sick of him way back on '01

I have tried, as have others, to explain rationally to mx what all of
us licensed pilots know, but no matter what we tell him, he won't
believe us, and seems to think somehow he is better than ordinary
mortals. I remember him saying a while back how he was sure he would
find learning to fly a real a/c 'trivial' since he was so good at
flying a sim. Now he is saying he would be able to fly indefinitely
on instruments with only him training on MSFS!!

I think this guy needs to be a character on Heroes if he's as good as
he thinks he is! What the hell, why doesn't he just walk into his
local FBO and pick up a license? He thinks his sim time is all he
needs, the actual flying is 'trivial'

What a dick.

[chris[_1_]]

On Apr 5, 10:32 am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > Dave Doe writes:
>
> > > We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
> > > and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
> > > he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
> > > the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
> > > Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.
>
> > Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
> > helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
> > you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?
>
> Did you not read my other post (about having fun under the helmet)? :)
> Regardless, it was nowhere near 90 seconds, more like ten. We were
> reasonably level (less than 30 degrees, probably 15) when I got control.
>
> --
> Duncan

He read it, but he'd rather argue with you

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
>> and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
>> he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
>> the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
>> Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.
>
> Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
> helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
> you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?
>
How would you know? You've not been anywhere near IMC in an aircraft.
Your room is always straight and level. The top of your computer makes
a wonderful horizon.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.
>
> There's nothing special about me.

Except that you talk about things you know nothing about.
You seem to think everything that exists on your computer
exists everywhere. You haven't a clue. Aircraft controls
are a much more complex system than Microsoft models. The
physiological aspects of flying in IFR. Inside an aircraft
that is moving, inside a environment that has either no
external reference or CONFUSING externasl references.

I give you about 3 minutes in actual IMC before you lose it.

>
>> You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
>> that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
>> the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
>> in real flight.
>
> You need to get away from highly emotional personal quarrels and back to the
> topics at hand. You don't want to fail that next medical.
>
I am at the topic at hand. You haven't a clue. My psycological
state is fine. I have a life unlike you who are a reclusive
wannabe-pilot, wannabe-photographer, wannabe-teacher, wannabe-tour guide.

Why don't you get off your ass and live real life?

[Jon]

On Apr 4, 8:45 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
> > exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.
>
> No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.
>
> You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
> that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
> the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
> in real flight.

Nice!

:D

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>


Complete bull****, all of it.

If computers had the ability to solve all the problems in your fantisized
perceptiong of reality - robots would be running marathons, istead of just
taking their first baby steps,,,,,, much like yourself.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 5, 9:31 am, "Jay Beckman" > wrote:
>> "chris" > wrote in message
>>
>
> I am getting real sick of this ****.. He once again is becoming
> insistant that he's right, even though once again everyone else is
> telling him he's wrong. The old mx refrain of "qualifications don't
> mean anything and I don't respect anyone by default" is just another
> way of saying "I won't listen to you even if you're qualified to give
> an opinion, and I won't believe you unless you agree with me"
>
> I was going to say that this guy is turning into a right f**kknuckle,
> but then a quick google search shows that in various newsgroups they
> were real sick of him way back on '01
>
> I have tried, as have others, to explain rationally to mx what all of
> us licensed pilots know, but no matter what we tell him, he won't
> believe us, and seems to think somehow he is better than ordinary
> mortals. I remember him saying a while back how he was sure he would
> find learning to fly a real a/c 'trivial' since he was so good at
> flying a sim. Now he is saying he would be able to fly indefinitely
> on instruments with only him training on MSFS!!
>
> I think this guy needs to be a character on Heroes if he's as good as
> he thinks he is! What the hell, why doesn't he just walk into his
> local FBO and pick up a license? He thinks his sim time is all he
> needs, the actual flying is 'trivial'
>
> What a dick.
>

Very true, every bit of it. But what he is sucessful at, is arguing everyone
in to eventually answering his questions. Which is his only self serving
motivation for his being here, with the exception of his enjoyment of
spreading his twisted idea of the reality of flight.

Everyone should just keep feeding him the same bull**** he is feeding them,
but quit letting him goad them in to answering his quesitons.

He has already made it clear in this forum alone, that he could give a ****
about anyone here, or their efforts in guiding him - and that his ability to
get answers here is just his own little Pavlovian experiment which most have
not wised up to.

[george]

On Apr 6, 12:14 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Dave Doe writes:
>
> >> We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
> >> and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
> >> he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
> >> the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
> >> Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.
>
> > Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
> > helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
> > you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?
>
> How would you know? You've not been anywhere near IMC in an aircraft.
> Your room is always straight and level. The top of your computer makes
> a wonderful horizon.


and don't forget the pause button.
I'm in the market for any aeroplane that has a pause button
ROTFLMAO

[Jose]

> and don't forget the pause button.
> I'm in the market for any aeroplane that has a pause button

Cirrus.

It's a bit buggy though, it tends to crash the system.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[d.g.s.]

On 4/5/2007 10:33 AM Maxwell jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> [...]
>
> Everyone should just keep feeding him the same bull**** he is feeding them,
> but quit letting him goad them in to answering his quesitons.

This would be a better idea than you might think. Anthony claims to
follow the Golden Rule. That means he treats others as he would want to
be treated. If he treats others like idiots by feeding them a bunch of
bull****, then clearly others should treat him like an idiot by feeding
him bull****, *and no more than that.*

Of course, it would be better to simply ignore him. In the various
forums in which he has participated (in Usenet especially), he tends to
receive responses not unlike those he has gotten here. Eventually,
people either figure out that ignoring him is the best policy, or they
keep responding. Many people do so in the mistaken belief that it's a
good idea to "help" him. Do not do this. It is very much a mistake.
Attempts to "help" Anthony are meaningless, as he considers all who
post here and in other Usenet forums as nothing more than names on a
screen, and thus denies their humanity. You will not fix this, ever.

> He has already made it clear in this forum alone, that he could give a ****
> about anyone here, or their efforts in guiding him - and that his ability to
> get answers here is just his own little Pavlovian experiment which most have
> not wised up to.

Whether or not this is all due to "his own little Pavlovian experiment"
isn't really relevant. He does get answers here, and he gets a certain
kind of response from a lot of people who post here. Want it to end?
Quit responding. Really. It's that simple. And quit pretending that
trying to "help" will change anything. It won't.
--
dgs

[Maxwell]

"d.g.s." > wrote in message
...
> On 4/5/2007 10:33 AM Maxwell jumped down, turned around, and wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Everyone should just keep feeding him the same bull**** he is feeding
>> them, but quit letting him goad them in to answering his quesitons.
>
> This would be a better idea than you might think. Anthony claims to
> follow the Golden Rule. That means he treats others as he would want to
> be treated. If he treats others like idiots by feeding them a bunch of
> bull****, then clearly others should treat him like an idiot by feeding
> him bull****, *and no more than that.*

I think it's the only solution.

>
> Of course, it would be better to simply ignore him. In the various
> forums in which he has participated (in Usenet especially), he tends to
> receive responses not unlike those he has gotten here. Eventually,
> people either figure out that ignoring him is the best policy, or they
> keep responding. Many people do so in the mistaken belief that it's a
> good idea to "help" him. Do not do this. It is very much a mistake.
> Attempts to "help" Anthony are meaningless, as he considers all who
> post here and in other Usenet forums as nothing more than names on a
> screen, and thus denies their humanity. You will not fix this, ever.
>
>> He has already made it clear in this forum alone, that he could give a
>> **** about anyone here, or their efforts in guiding him - and that his
>> ability to get answers here is just his own little Pavlovian experiment
>> which most have not wised up to.
>
> Whether or not this is all due to "his own little Pavlovian experiment"
> isn't really relevant. He does get answers here, and he gets a certain
> kind of response from a lot of people who post here. Want it to end?
> Quit responding. Really. It's that simple. And quit pretending that
> trying to "help" will change anything. It won't.

First to clarify, he is the one that compared himself to Pavlov, not me. But
I do think him stating so is very important, because it reveals his true
perspective.

He has obviously accomplished little in his lifetime by his own admittance,
regardless of how long or short, so he hides behind a computer on the
Usenet, pretending to be something he clearly is not. All the while trolling
in an attempt to increase his knowledge, while deliberately aggravating the
people he envies the most. The people that have that knowledge and have
actually flown.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"chris" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Apr 3, 3:37 pm, "Bertie the Bunyip" >
> wrote:
>> On 2 Apr, 22:26, "chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > > Dylan Smith writes:
>> > > > Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely
>> > > > normal that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form
>> > > > of a gauge that at least gives a reasonable indication of how
>> > > > much fuel you have left?
>>
>> > > Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing
>> > > to die in the cockpit.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>>
>> > That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will
>> > be flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2
>> > hours fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!
>>
>> You won't be flying. you won't be on a cross coutry and you won't
>> have fuel, Jesus boi.
>>
>> Oh and BTW, How do you know Jesus didn't **** like a bunny?
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Eh?? I posted about having a 2 1/2 hr cross country coming up, not
> mx, and I certainly will be flying a real aeroplane!! :-)
>

Oops, sorry, the quoted text is MSX manic's but I dropped it under your
poast in error.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> EridanMan writes:
>
>> > Who would install $2 million of avionics on
>> > a $90,000 aircraft?
>>
>> God forbid you spend the 30 seconds required to lookup the price of a
>> TCAS system and save yourself from making such an embarrassingly
>> pointless question.
>
> I didn't say anything about the cost of a TCAS system

Who cares what you say, wannabe boi?


Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> Not minutes at a time, but HOURS at a time depending on how long
>> the flight in the clouds lasts. Not quite spinning like the fun
>> training device I was mentioning, but the effect is just as good;
>> better actually.
>
> But you don't have to walk in an aircraft.

So if you are spun around in a chair you won't be equally disoriented?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> So if you are spun around in a chair you won't be equally disoriented?

The disorientation is less important if you are sitting.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> So if you are spun around in a chair you won't be equally disoriented?
>
> The disorientation is less important if you are sitting.

If what you are sitting in isn't mobile.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If what you are sitting in isn't mobile.

Even if it is. You don't have to keep your balance while sitting.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Even if it is. You don't have to keep your balance while sitting.

1) You can become dizzy enough to fall off a chair.

2) Keeping your balance within a chair has nothing to do with the
disorientation of flying.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> If what you are sitting in isn't mobile.
>
> Even if it is. You don't have to keep your balance while sitting.
>

Don't worry about it. It's not a factor in flying a desk.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> 1) You can become dizzy enough to fall off a chair.

Not if you're strapped in.

> 2) Keeping your balance within a chair has nothing to do with the
> disorientation of flying.

It makes it easier to concentrate on instruments.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> 1) You can become dizzy enough to fall off a chair.
>
> Not if you're strapped in.
>
>> 2) Keeping your balance within a chair has nothing to do with the
>> disorientation of flying.
>
> It makes it easier to concentrate on instruments.

Strap yourself into your sim chair and spin yourself around for several
minutes, until you are dizzy enough that you would fall off if you were not
strapped in. Then begin an approach into an airport that you are unfamiliar
with and let us know how you make out.

I'm sure you will tell us that you can land without any issue. But I suspect
it will be without ever actually trying.