You mean I have to TALK to ATC? - long

[Jeff[_1_]]

Well, today was my first foray into controlled airspace......

Enjoy!

jf

(entire blog at http://n1451f.blogspot.com)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

YEEEEEEE HA!!!!!!!!!!

This week's flight was more fun than.....well....something that's a lot of
fun. The goal of this lesson was to work more with VOR navigation and (more
importantly) fly into my first controlled field. I feel very comfortable
with the navigation part. There are times that I still have to really think
about what Kary is asking me, but if I were out on my own, I'm confident I
could find my way.

On a side note, I will say that I think my time spent flying in MS Flight
Sim was well used. I've heard many "real" pilots knock MSFS as a game and
dismiss it. From experience, I will tell you that my navigation and
instrument understanding was helped IMMENSELY. There is still TONS to learn,
but basic concepts were learned a long time ago when it didn't cost me
$4/gal of gas. I even "invented" my own procedure for flying paralled to a
VOR and timing a 5 degree change. Then by doing the math, I could figure out
how far from the VOR I actually was. I thought I was cool, until someone
told me that you have to know how to do something similar for your IFR
ticket. So much for being a visionary :)

But back to Thursday morning. I arrived at LUG at 8:30 and Kary was ready to
go. I went out and preflighted 51F before we sat down to discuss what we
were about to do. Basically, the plan was to leave LUG, keep up with where
we were using the VOR's and eventually pickup the radial that would carry us
from Shelbyville (SYI) to Smyrna (MQY). From there we'd make the required
radio contacts and land. Take a break then head out again. We reviewed the
chart, got all my frequencies together (which was new...I thought the whole
world operated off of 122.8) and headed to the plane.

We fired up, taxied out and took off...eh...."departed"...Lewisburg. As we
were climbing out, it was actually pretty cool to realize that we were
"going somewhere", albeit only 35 miles, it sure beats the pattern I've been
relegated to (not that there's anything wrong with that!!!!). As we made our
way NorthEast, Kary was quizzing me as to where we were and where the SYI
VOR was, etc. We ended up picking up our MQY radial about 10 miles North of
SYI. Apparently, we were inside someone else's practice are, because we got
to fly some formation maneuvers with a Piper who liked our airspace. We
safely snuck behind him, but I still don't think he ever saw us.

We picked up our radial (352 FROM SYI, i think), and headed for MQY. One
cool part of this was that I've never flown over most of this area. The
majority of my flying has been west and south of here, so, it was all new to
me. We climbed on up to 2500(ish) to be sure that we were well above a nice
little 2000ft tower in the area and made our way north. One thing that was
new to me on this flight was simply keeping up with the frequency changes. I
don't think I've ever changed frequencies in 51F, other than to go from the
standby freq (always set to LUG's AWOS) and back to 122.8 (CTAF for most of
the airports in the area). So, believe it or not, I had to figure out how to
tune our own radio. Sad, but true.

As we got about 13 miles south of MQY, I made my first ever ATC radio call.
I really wasn't nervous about doing this, like I thought I'd be. Kary had
told me (and given me a example "script") what to expect and what to say, so
now it was just a matter of doing it. It was kind of neat to realize that
someone on the other end of the radio actually gave a crap about what I was
saying. When talking in the pattern at LUG, your just blindly calling out
where you are for others, but no one is speaking TO you or expecting you to
understand them with great clarity.

MQY is in Class D Airspace, but part of it sits just under the edge of
Nashville's Class C shelf. So, even though there isn't any reason for that
to be a problem, it's still cool to realize that I've got to do it right (or
Kary gets blamed!).

There wasn't too much traffic as we got closer, but we were told to find a
Katana on an ILS approach and were cleared to land behind him once we did
find him. Now this is where everything I ever learned about a pattern went
out the window. Suddenly, we're turning a VERY wide base-to-final turn and
trying to keep the Katana in sight. When I got lined up with the runway, we
were all of 5 miles out. I suddenly knew what it was like to fly a
Citation....except it was going to take me another 4 minutes to get there!

There was traffic behind us, so Kary told me to keep my speed up to about
90mph until we got in tighter, just to be nice (we later found out that the
traffic behind us was a Blackhawk....I don't think he would have complained
about us doing 80....he could have just hovered and waited :) ). About 1
mile out, I drop a few degrees of flaps and slow us down. Kary had warned me
that this was a BIG runway and the depth perception might be a problem. I'll
admit, the sight picture is definitely different, but expecting it, I was
able to make a fairly good landing. We taxi to one of the FBO's and
shutdown. Pretty cool experience.

After about a 20 minute break (and the obligitory coffee and free popcorn),
we go back out and fire up. Contacting ground went just like Kary explained
it would. As with all the radio comms, it's just a matter of knowing what
you want to do, how to say it and then what to listen for. We taxied out to
Rwy 1, did our runup, contacted the tower and left....eh....departed.

The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into SYI,
did a touch and go there, dodged another Katana and flew home.

All together, we managed 1.6 hours in the air. And it was FUNNNN! Just going
places....ANY places (even the break room of Smyrna Air) makes this whole
thing that much more fun.

I know guys who did all their training at a Class C airport. ATC comms to
them started on the first lesson. What's funny is listening to them talk
about being intimidated about flying into an uncontrolled field. They think
us Class G'rs are insane! :)

I'm starting to think I like this flying thing....but that "free" bag of
popcorn just set me back $100. Welcome to General Aviation, Mr. Franks!

It's all good.

jf

[Mxsmanic]

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > writes:

> On a side note, I will say that I think my time spent flying in MS Flight
> Sim was well used. I've heard many "real" pilots knock MSFS as a game and
> dismiss it. From experience, I will tell you that my navigation and
> instrument understanding was helped IMMENSELY.

Did you fly offline or did you use a network such as VATSIM? VATSIM is
extremely useful for gaining experience with radio communication, if you're
nervous about talking to ATC. The built-in ATC in MSFS is rather predictable
and inflexible, but the online ATC is essentially like real life.

[Blueskies]

Thanks for the newbie's perceptions. I was one of those that always flew in controlled airspace, and the foray off to
the uncontrolled dirt strip was the first time at an uncontrolled airport. It seems we fondly remember the first time in
many of our experiences, good or bad...


"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message ...
> Well, today was my first foray into controlled airspace......
>
> Enjoy!
>
> jf
>
> (entire blog at http://n1451f.blogspot.com)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> YEEEEEEE HA!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This week's flight was more fun than.....well....something that's a lot of fun. The goal of this lesson was to work
> more with VOR navigation and (more importantly) fly into my first controlled field. I feel very comfortable with the
> navigation part. There are times that I still have to really think about what Kary is asking me, but if I were out on
> my own, I'm confident I could find my way.
>
......
> I'm starting to think I like this flying thing....but that "free" bag of popcorn just set me back $100. Welcome to
> General Aviation, Mr. Franks!
>
> It's all good.
>
> jf
>

[Jay Honeck]

> We picked up our radial (352 FROM SYI, i think), and headed for MQY.

> The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into SYI,

I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,
but I guess not.

Great story -- thanks for sharing it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > writes:
>
>> On a side note, I will say that I think my time spent flying in MS
>> Flight Sim was well used. I've heard many "real" pilots knock MSFS as
>> a game and dismiss it. From experience, I will tell you that my
>> navigation and instrument understanding was helped IMMENSELY.
>
> Did you fly offline or did you use a network such as VATSIM? VATSIM
> is extremely useful for gaining experience with radio communication,
> if you're nervous about talking to ATC.


No, it isn't. You don't fly, therefore you are talking complete ****.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> >I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
> >radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,
>
> And what way have those gone?
> NDB's are still in widespread use, and impetus to decommission them has slowed
> in recent years. They're also very handy in many situations.
> As for VOR's, and VOR/DME airways,they still represent the backbone of the IFR
> route system, and cannot be supplanted by random/direct routes anytime soon.
> There's even talk of bringing LORAN-C back into the picture . . .

Amazing. When I did my primary training in '94, the talk was all
about phasing out VORs and ADFs "soon". That was one of the primary
reasons that I didn't proceed directly to the instrument rating at the
time -- I didn't want to be saddled with an obsolete knowledge-base,
given that everything was moving to GPS.

Here we are, 13 years later, and apparently little has changed. We've
got a navigation system (GPS) that is accurate to within a meter, and
yet the entire system is still built around VORs, which is accurate to
within...a lot. (Anyone know how accurate it is to be flying a VOR
radial say, 30 miles from the VOR station? Is it a mile? A half
mile? 1000 feet? I have no idea...)

But I do know this: In the real world of (relatively unregulated) VFR
flying, GPS rules. The fact that the IFR system hasn't completed the
change-over in a decade is just another example of how glacial
progress can be in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> (Anyone know how accurate it is to be flying a VOR
> radial say, 30 miles from the VOR station? Is it a mile? A half
> mile? 1000 feet? I have no idea...)

iirc - an airway is 8 miles wide.

btw - accuracy is one thing, but remember, inaccuracy of VORs, for example,
just means more airspace has to be protected. That protection includes
obstacles (man-made and natural) and other airplanes.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Aluckyguess]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We picked up our radial (352 FROM SYI, i think), and headed for MQY.
>
>> The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into
>> SYI,
>
> I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
> radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,

I was flying to Reno last week and there was a GPS outage part of the way
there. I had a couple guys with me and they just looked at me when the MX20
and the 296 went blank. I just tuned in to the next VOR and kept going 10
minutes later they came back.

> but I guess not.
>
> Great story -- thanks for sharing it!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Here we are, 13 years later, and apparently little has changed. We've
> got a navigation system (GPS) that is accurate to within a meter, and
> yet the entire system is still built around VORs, which is accurate to
> within...a lot. (Anyone know how accurate it is to be flying a VOR
> radial say, 30 miles from the VOR station? Is it a mile? A half
> mile? 1000 feet? I have no idea...)

If your VOR is accurate to within one degree, then the inaccuracy is 30 *
pi/180 or about half a mile. Increase the inaccuracy proportional with the
VOR inaccuracy, so two degrees gets you to within a mile, etc.

However, there's the question of how accurate you need to be, and how
accurate you *want* to be. When you're 30 miles out, being within a mile
of where you want to be is probably fine. And having navigational systems
that are too accurate can be dangerous. There is some concern now that GPS
is leading to increased mid-air collisions due to pilots following the GPS
exactly, causing them to run into other aircraft who were also following
their GPS exactly along the same track. The obvious fix is to not follow
it so exactly, but I think a lot of people get trained to fly as precisely
as possible and then carry that over to following their GPS.

There's also the question of reliability. For IFR flight where you *need*
some kind of navigation system, having only one is dangerous. Maybe VOR
isn't the best backup system but there ought to be *something* in
operation other than GPS.

> But I do know this: In the real world of (relatively unregulated) VFR
> flying, GPS rules. The fact that the IFR system hasn't completed the
> change-over in a decade is just another example of how glacial
> progress can be in aviation.

Backups are more important for IFR, though. If I'm flying and suddenly GPS
goes out, I'll just shrug and keep looking out the window. If someone is
flying IFR in the clouds and the One True Nav System goes down, he's
pretty screwed.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[WhoGivesAFig?]

Airbus wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
>
>
>>> The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into SYI,
>> I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
>> radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,
>
>
> And what way have those gone?
> NDB's are still in widespread use, and impetus to decommission them has slowed
> in recent years. They're also very handy in many situations.
>
> As for VOR's, and VOR/DME airways,they still represent the backbone of the IFR
> route system, and cannot be supplanted by random/direct routes anytime soon.
>
> There's even talk of bringing LORAN-C back into the picture . . .
>


Wait till some huge solar flare knocks out the GPS network
for days

The whole situation will change regarding IFR flight

All the whiz bang nonsense coming from the FAA is stupid

Go with what you know will work

[Dallas]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:56:28 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
> radials.

The DE might be disappointed on the checkride if the student didn't know
what a VOR was.

:-)

--
Dallas

[Jay Honeck]

> I was flying to Reno last week and there was a GPS outage part of the way
> there. I had a couple guys with me and they just looked at me when the MX20
> and the 296 went blank. I just tuned in to the next VOR and kept going 10
> minutes later they came back.

Interesting. I've had a similar experience where I lost one (or two)
GPS's (for reasons unknown) -- but I've never lost *both* of them.

I'm not saying VORs don't have a place anymore. I'm just surprised to
hear primary students flying around solely by reference to them. It
seems rather quaint, with so many students training in glass
cockpits...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Interesting. I've had a similar experience where I lost one (or two)
> GPS's (for reasons unknown) -- but I've never lost *both* of them.

Obviously that should read "...one (OF two) GPS's"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> All the whiz bang nonsense coming from the FAA is stupid
> Go with what you know will work

I know you probably don't mean this quite so literally, but we'd still
be flying A/N radio ranges and following light beacons with that
attitude...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:50:57 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

> It
>seems rather quaint, with so many students training in glass
>cockpits...

How many students AREN'T training behind glass?

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> I'm not saying VORs don't have a place anymore. I'm just surprised to
> hear primary students flying around solely by reference to them. It
> seems rather quaint, with so many students training in glass
> cockpits...

I've never flown a glass cockpit, but they must use VOR navigation
devices like any other.

[Jay Honeck]

> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?

Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped out Cessna
150, just like a couple of generations before him...

The only thing glass in that plane is probably the electrical
insulators...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug Semler]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?
>
> Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped out Cessna
> 150, just like a couple of generations before him...
>
> The only thing glass in that plane is probably the electrical
> insulators...
>


I thought you were gonna say the vacuum tubes <g>

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Here we are, 13 years later, and apparently little has changed. We've
> got a navigation system (GPS) that is accurate to within a meter, and
> yet the entire system is still built around VORs, which is accurate to
> within...a lot. (Anyone know how accurate it is to be flying a VOR
> radial say, 30 miles from the VOR station? Is it a mile? A half
> mile? 1000 feet? I have no idea...)

I suggest it's a case of accepting bothersome but known and well-quantified
risks rather than accepting unknown and unquantified risks. The behavior of
VORs is well understood; the potential problems with GPS are not.

> But I do know this: In the real world of (relatively unregulated) VFR
> flying, GPS rules. The fact that the IFR system hasn't completed the
> change-over in a decade is just another example of how glacial
> progress can be in aviation.

In IFR, your life depends on the instruments; in VFR, it does not. So VFR can
afford to take risks with instruments that would be potentially deadly with
IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I know you probably don't mean this quite so literally, but we'd still
> be flying A/N radio ranges and following light beacons with that
> attitude...

GPS will be more widely used once experience has proved that it can be
trusted.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>Did you fly offline or did you use a network such as VATSIM? VATSIM is
>extremely useful for gaining experience with radio communication, if you're
>nervous about talking to ATC. The built-in ATC in MSFS is rather predictable
>and inflexible, but the online ATC is essentially like real life.

How the **** would you know?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Can't get out of 'vi'? Common problem. Don't worry, I'm here to help. Just
log in as root and type "init 0". It works for pretty much any problem you
might have with Linux. No, no, no. Thank /you/. -- Mikey Raeder

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:

> > I know you probably don't mean this quite so literally, but we'd still
> > be flying A/N radio ranges and following light beacons with that
> > attitude...

> GPS will be more widely used once experience has proved that it can be
> trusted.

That time has long passed in the real world.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> I know you probably don't mean this quite so literally, but we'd still
>> be flying A/N radio ranges and following light beacons with that
>> attitude...
>
> GPS will be more widely used once experience has proved that it can be
> trusted.
>

You are an idiot.
Nobody would trust you with a tricycle.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Here we are, 13 years later, and apparently little has changed.
>> We've got a navigation system (GPS) that is accurate to within a
>> meter, and yet the entire system is still built around VORs, which is
>> accurate to within...a lot. (Anyone know how accurate it is to be
>> flying a VOR radial say, 30 miles from the VOR station? Is it a
>> mile? A half mile? 1000 feet? I have no idea...)
>
> I suggest it's a case of accepting bothersome but known and
> well-quantified risks rather than accepting unknown and unquantified
> risks. The behavior of VORs is well understood; the potential
> problems with GPS are not.
>
>> But I do know this: In the real world of (relatively unregulated) VFR
>> flying, GPS rules. The fact that the IFR system hasn't completed the
>> change-over in a decade is just another example of how glacial
>> progress can be in aviation.
>
> In IFR, your life depends on the instruments;

You are an idiot.


You don't fly,

Your life doesn't depend on instruments you lying sack of ****.


Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > Interesting. I've had a similar experience where I lost one (or two)
> > GPS's (for reasons unknown) -- but I've never lost *both* of them.
>
> Obviously that should read "...one (OF two) GPS's"...

I thought you carried more than 2, no?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:23:45 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?
>
>Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped out Cessna
>150, just like a couple of generations before him...

And a lot of current students, really!

On a side note... As an ex-newspaper guy, have your read "The Cult of
the Amateur"?

I just heard a very interesting radio interview with the author.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>
>You don't fly,


My personal fave is "Bankruptcy Boi."

Thanks. <G>

[Airbus]

In article . com>,
says...


>> The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into SYI,
>
>I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
>radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,


And what way have those gone?
NDB's are still in widespread use, and impetus to decommission them has slowed
in recent years. They're also very handy in many situations.

As for VOR's, and VOR/DME airways,they still represent the backbone of the IFR
route system, and cannot be supplanted by random/direct routes anytime soon.

There's even talk of bringing LORAN-C back into the picture . . .

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That time has long passed in the real world.

Unfortunately, no, it has not.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Doug Semler" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?
> >
> > Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped out Cessna
> > 150, just like a couple of generations before him...
> >
> > The only thing glass in that plane is probably the electrical
> > insulators...
> >
>
>
> I thought you were gonna say the vacuum tubes <g>

The steam gauge covers, too.

I've been away from flying now for 31 years. Getting back to it in a few
weeks, lots of bookwork in my immediate future.

If I end up retraining on something with a glass cockpit, it will be the
first time I've seen one outside a magazine.

[Viperdoc]

I can see him losing a GPS signal and falling on his ass out of the office
chair while talking to simulated ATC

[Viperdoc]

I had the same thing occur to both units just before an IFR departure
earlier this week as well- perhaps the GPS failure was pretty widespread.

Rebooted both and they came up no problem.

[Viperdoc]

His only contact with the real world is sitting in front of computer making
airplane sounds and talking to fake ATC. What does he know about flying, let
alone the real world?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
t:

> His only contact with the real world is sitting in front of computer
> making airplane sounds and talking to fake ATC. What does he know
> about flying, let alone the real world?
>
>
>

Well, exactly, aside from naming every carpet strand on the way to the
fridge..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>You don't fly,
>
>
> My personal fave is "Bankruptcy Boi."
>
Funny how he never wants to talk about that..


bertie

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That time has long passed in the real world.

> Unfortunately, no, it has not.

Only in your simulation.

The real world accepted GPS long ago.

Two factors delayed general acceptance; the military differ that
reduced accuracy and the high cost.

Both have been history for a long time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[zac.badenoff]

Jeff wrote:

<snip>

Apparently, we were inside someone else's practice are, because we got
to fly some formation maneuvers with a Piper who liked our airspace. We
safely snuck behind him, but I still don't think he ever saw us.
> jf


<snip>

Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me
a bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?

If he suddenly performed a steep turn, or any extreme direction change,
how would that have affected your position?

I was under the impression that *see and be seen* was paramount for
safety in the air?

Anyway .. nice story otherwise. :)

__
zb

PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
in this day and age. My 2c.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"zac.badenoff" <zac> wrote
>
> PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
> posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening in
> this day and age. My 2c.

Do some googling on past threads, or stick around for a couple days.

The hostility is well earned, and deserved.

If you are talking about MXSMANIC, he is a self-proclaimed expert on
EVERYTHING from flying air transport aircraft to breast feeding. (on their
newsgroup) If you don't believe that one, go to the group and poke around
and ask questions and google.

He should be in a Psycho ward, and on some strong medication. Instead, he
trolls here,and elsewhere, ****ing off everyone with arguments, that when
proven to be incorrect, he dismisses as incorrect, and the poster
irrelevant.

If you don't want to be quickly classified with him, I would suggest you not
stick up for him. You too, will tire of him in a hurry, and wonder why you
ever thought he deserved the benefit of the doubt.
--
Jim in NC

[Jeff[_1_]]

"zac.badenoff" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Apparently, we were inside someone else's practice are, because we got
> to fly some formation maneuvers with a Piper who liked our airspace. We
> safely snuck behind him, but I still don't think he ever saw us.
>> jf
>
> <snip>
>
> Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me a
> bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
> aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
>
> If he suddenly performed a steep turn, or any extreme direction change,
> how would that have affected your position?
>
> I was under the impression that *see and be seen* was paramount for safety
> in the air?
>
> Anyway .. nice story otherwise. :)
>
> __
> zb

I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really
never that close, but there was a time he stopped "moving" in my windshield,
so I opted to turn towards where he'd been (behind him) and keep a close eye
as we past above and behind him. I'm terrible at determining distance
plane-to-plane. We were close enough to get my attention, but never so
close that I felt like there was a real problem (of course I'm just the
student here :) ).

As for the "hostility", please don't judge this group by a few posts! These
guys have helped me immensly in the years I've been lurking here. Great
guys who go out of their way to help (and even give out free beer a few days
prior to Oshkosh (and even some during)). Hang around here a while. It's a
great place to be. there are just a few posters who like to cause problems
and have more than worn out their welcome with some folks (ok...most folks).

jf

[Jeff[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We picked up our radial (352 FROM SYI, i think), and headed for MQY.
>
>> The trip back was pretty cool. I opted to fly the VOR all the way into
>> SYI,
>
> I'm surprised to see that primary students are still flying VOR
> radials. I thought that had gone the way of ADFs and light beacons,
> but I guess not.

Jay,

If they took my OBS out of my plane, I'd probably quit flying! :) I don't
know why, but VOR and NDB type navigation has always been "fun" for me. I
love using the chart to triangulate my position and (like I said in the
blog), I've even figured out several "original" ways to use VOR's to figure
out where I am. Of course, I always found out later that my "original"
ideas were usually 50 years old and put out of use by GPS (or even DME! :)).

Call me a geek, but I just think the whole radio navigation game is a lot of
fun. Don't get me wrong. The day I can afford one of those fancy dancy
moving map panels....I just might get one.....but I still want my steam OBS
:)

jf

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
> "zac.badenoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me a
>> bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
>> aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
>> __
>> zb
>
> I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really

Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student zac.badenoff > wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Apparently, we were inside someone else's practice are, because we got
> to fly some formation maneuvers with a Piper who liked our airspace. We
> safely snuck behind him, but I still don't think he ever saw us.
>> jf
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me
> a bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
> aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
>
> If he suddenly performed a steep turn, or any extreme direction change,
> how would that have affected your position?
>
> I was under the impression that *see and be seen* was paramount for
> safety in the air?
>
> Anyway .. nice story otherwise. :)

You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,
and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

> PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
> posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
> in this day and age. My 2c.

I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
using nice words while doing so.

It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
to act like a prick.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Doug Semler]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
> ...
>> "zac.badenoff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Pardon me for jumping into this thread, but the paragraph above left me
>>> a bit shocked. At no time did either of you think to *contact* this
>>> aircraft, to advise the pilot that you were in *his* vicinity?
>>> __
>>> zb
>>
>> I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really
>
> Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?
>


Yell really, *REALLY* loudly out the window, of course <g>

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[zac.badenoff]

Michael Ash wrote:
> You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
> away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,


OK Michael, let's dance.

".. no doubt hyperbole" .. that would be *you* jumping to a conclusion
then?

> and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
> been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
> distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
> there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
> question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.

The way Jeff had written it though, led me to believe there *may* have
been a potential for danger, that's all.

>> PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
>> posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
>> in this day and age. My 2c.
>
> I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
> basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
> using nice words while doing so.


Michael, at *no* stage was my reply an attack and to make that
assumption makes me wonder about your approach to posts on Newsgroups,
that you'd immediately apply an aggressive stance to my post. There was
no such intent from me, you have read this into my post, for no good
reason, all by yourself.


> It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
> to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps and indeed you should apply that good advice for yourself? :)

> The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
> have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
> nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
> to act like a prick.

Yes, that's why I have a kill file. If you don't wish to read this chaps
post then *plonk* him into your kill file and voila, less stress in your
life. However I do understand and note that it is *good sport* to berate
and insult those whom you vehemently disagree with, rather than take the
higher ground and simply choose to ignore them. ;)

Thanks for your reply Michael.

__
zb

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student zac.badenoff > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> You're rather jumping to conclusions here. He never stated just how far
>> away the other aircraft was. "Formation maneuvers" is no doubt hyperbole,
>
> OK Michael, let's dance.
>
> ".. no doubt hyperbole" .. that would be *you* jumping to a conclusion
> then?

I don't think so. The scenario is a student flying with his instructor and
getting close enough to another airplane, away from an airport, for the
student to take note. The reasonable assumption is that the instructor is
competent, the student interested, and the term "formation maneuvers" used
for effect, not a literal description, particularly given that reasonable
formation maneuvers require the cooperation of the other guy.

>> and given the way some pilots treat traffic the other aircraft could have
>> been two miles away and still have caused nervousness. Without knowing the
>> distances and more importantly altitudes involved we can't say whether
>> there was any danger, and generally you should assume that the pilots in
>> question were competent and thus hopefully there was none.
>
> The way Jeff had written it though, led me to believe there *may* have
> been a potential for danger, that's all.

You said it "shocked" you, and you then proceeded to question his
judgement in not contacting the other aircraft. This would appear to go
beyond idle speculation about possibilities.

>>> PS: Finally, what is it with all the aggressive attitude against certain
>>> posters in newsgroups? IMHO It's exceedingly immature and disheartening
>>> in this day and age. My 2c.
>>
>> I find this to be tremendously and amusingly ironic given that you
>> basically attacked the other poster about his behavior in the air, albeit
>> using nice words while doing so.
>
> Michael, at *no* stage was my reply an attack and to make that
> assumption makes me wonder about your approach to posts on Newsgroups,
> that you'd immediately apply an aggressive stance to my post. There was
> no such intent from me, you have read this into my post, for no good
> reason, all by yourself.

Well, I don't really believe it was an attack but it's easy to read it as
one, what with "shocked", the stars around the obvious words like
"contact", the description of dire consequences should the other plane
have done something unexpected, and the overly dramatic restating of basic
principles of airmanship. This is exactly what I mean as far as posts
which are not meant to be an attack getting interpreted as one.

>> It is easy to misinterpret motivations over the internet when all you have
>> to go by is text. For best effect, give others the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Perhaps and indeed you should apply that good advice for yourself? :)
>
>> The only cases of outright and unambiguous hostility I have seen in here
>> have been toward a target who absolutely and richly deserves it. There is
>> nothing immature about berating a pompous ass who has once again decided
>> to act like a prick.
>
> Yes, that's why I have a kill file. If you don't wish to read this chaps
> post then *plonk* him into your kill file and voila, less stress in your
> life. However I do understand and note that it is *good sport* to berate
> and insult those whom you vehemently disagree with, rather than take the
> higher ground and simply choose to ignore them. ;)

The poster in question goes far beyond "disagree with". He regularly posts
knowledgeable-sounding articles in subject areas with which he has no
actual experience or real knowledge, e.g. flying airplanes.

While I personally believe that if you ignore him he will go away, some
other posters seem to believe that he needs to be debunked lest some less
experienced souls mistake his worthless spoutings for actual knowledge. I
don't agree but I can certainly see why they would do this.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Jeff[_1_]]

-snippage-

>>
>> I was about to contact him when he turned away from us. We were really
>
> Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?
>
> -------------------------------
> Travis
> Lake N3094P
> PWK

What I was about to do was key the mic and say something along the lines of
"Piper doing maneuvers 10 miles NW of Shelbyille, 51F is a C172 at your 2
o'clock (or whever we were)....." And then maybe explain that we'd pass
behind him if he'd hold course. I realize there isn't anything in the AIM
about this specifically, but it couldn't have hurt!

I don't know how close he was, but by the time we passed behind him, I'd
*GUESS* we might have been within half a mile (at the closest point and when
he was heading away from me).

I never felt ANY reason for over-concern. I spotted him first, pointed him
out and my CFI perked up when he stopped moving across the windscreen
(probably 1 mile out or so).

And yes. the "formation" was hyperbole....or exaggeration... :)

jf

[Marty Shapiro]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You don't fly,
>>
>>
>> My personal fave is "Bankruptcy Boi."
>>
> Funny how he never wants to talk about that..
>
>
> bertie
>

He started to last week in rec.travel.air and, as one would suspect,
managed to make a total ass of himself there. He tried to show how the
stock market was nothing but gambling and that stock had no intrinsic
value. After someone ripped him a new one, he shut up on that topic. But,
at one point in his attempt to justify his stand, he implied that he had
been wiped out in the dot.com bust.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dallas]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:01:08 GMT, Travis Marlatte wrote:

> Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?

On channel 19.

Breaker, Breaker... ya got yer ears on? Thar's a Smokey on yer six.

--
Dallas

[Airbus]

In article . com>,
says...

>I'm not saying VORs don't have a place anymore. I'm just surprised to
>hear primary students flying around solely by reference to them. It
>seems rather quaint, with so many students training in glass cockpits


I think the "typical" training environment today (for basic PPL) is a 152/172
with the same panel they had 20 years ago, albeit with an add-on G430 which may
or may not be certified WAAS (little importance for the PPL student). The
instructors will turn off the GPS 90% of the time.


>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Kevin Clarke]

Jeff wrote:
> -snippage-
>
>
>> Just curious. How do you think you would "contact" the other plane?
>>
>>
>
> What I was about to do was key the mic and say something along the lines of
> "Piper doing maneuvers 10 miles NW of Shelbyille, 51F is a C172 at your 2
> o'clock (or whever we were)....." And then maybe explain that we'd pass
> behind him if he'd hold course. I realize there isn't anything in the AIM
> about this specifically, but it couldn't have hurt!
>

No one has answered the guy's comment yet ...

Jeff, you can't contact the other plane. You might get lucky and be on
the same frequency as the other guy but there is no air-to-air channel
for such things that people have to listen to by regulation or even by
standardly accepted good practice. So you can talk all you want into the
mic odds are, you'll only annoy the local CTAFs! :-)

There are channels for use (half step above the CTAF freq, ie: 122.75,
122.85) for air-to-air but an arrangement has to be made ahead of time
between the pilots to be there. Which is not the case here.
> I don't know how close he was, but by the time we passed behind him, I'd
> *GUESS* we might have been within half a mile (at the closest point and when
> he was heading away from me).
>

Until you've seen a few of them, they always seem to raise some concern.
My first CFI said, if they fill up the whole window you should take
evasive action.

KC

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:52:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
>Well, exactly, aside from naming every carpet strand on the way to the
>fridge..

He could create a VFR Terminal Area chart of the room, complete with a
4' AGL group obstruction formed by a chair and ottoman.

[Thomas Borchert]

Kevin,

> Jeff, you can't contact the other plane. You might get lucky and be on
> the same frequency as the other guy but there is no air-to-air channel
> for such things that people have to listen to by regulation or even by
> standardly accepted good practice.
>

Ah, but couldn't he just say "All traffic please advise"? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jeff[_1_]]

-some snippage-

> You will have some advantages because of your "historical" vantage point
> (don't take it badly ;-)). As systems always evolve, what we do today is
> directly derived from what we did yesterday, so you will easily grasp some
> concepts that the young whippersnappers have difficulty wrapping their
> minds around. Of course, there will be entirely new concepts to learn -
> like RNP, or ADS-b, but the learning was always part of the satisfaction
> in
> flying.
>

Don't forget Class A, Class C, Class D, etc :) My dad is just now getting
to the point he doesn't refer to airspace using pre-1990 terms :)

jf

[Jeff[_1_]]

....
>
> Jeff, you can't contact the other plane. You might get lucky and be on the
> same frequency as the other guy but there is no air-to-air channel for
> such things that people have to listen to by regulation or even by
> standardly accepted good practice. So you can talk all you want into the
> mic odds are, you'll only annoy the local CTAFs! :-)
>
> There are channels for use (half step above the CTAF freq, ie: 122.75,
> 122.85) for air-to-air but an arrangement has to be made ahead of time
> between the pilots to be there. Which is not the case here.
>> I don't know how close he was, but by the time we passed behind him, I'd
>> *GUESS* we might have been within half a mile (at the closest point and
>> when he was heading away from me).
>>

Agreed! I didn't truly expect to get him. Most of the local airports in
this area (98% uncontrolled) use the same CTAF, 122.8 (and yes it can get
quite overloaded at times). My Comm1 stays there unless I'm getting close
to an airport that might use something different. I wasn't about to rely on
the radio to keep us seperated, but if he had gotten any closer, I was going
to rattle every chain that I could try :)

And yes, my CFI wasn't even bothered by it. When I pointed him out, he
started watching him close and didn't get all that worried until he stopped
moving in the windshield. Then he just said, let's head behind him and keep
a close eye on him after we pass.

This has turned into a MUCH bigger deal in R.A.P than it was in real life :)

jf

[Jay Honeck]

> That's just great that you're getting back into it.
> My bet is you'll find many more similarities than differences,

Heck, I'm probably flying the same plane you flew 31 years ago!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
1974 Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:52:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>Well, exactly, aside from naming every carpet strand on the way to the
>>fridge..
>
> He could create a VFR Terminal Area chart of the room, complete with a
> 4' AGL group obstruction formed by a chair and ottoman.
>

Cool. He could fly to the fridge..

Actualy, in old timey sims we used a "model room" where a little model
airport was created in a room and a camera flew around the room providing
the visuals.
Much fun was had flying around low level obliterating terminals and
landmarks with the low flying camera (so I've been told, I only flew one of
these things and the techies had put a safety in which retracted the camera
if you got close to crashing into something) Still, you could have great
fun suspending a dead fly in front of the camera for your buddy's
edification.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Marty Shapiro > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> B A R R Y > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You don't fly,
>>>
>>>
>>> My personal fave is "Bankruptcy Boi."
>>>
>> Funny how he never wants to talk about that..
>>
>>
>> bertie
>>
>
> He started to last week in rec.travel.air and, as one would
> suspect,
> managed to make a total ass of himself there. He tried to show how
> the stock market was nothing but gambling and that stock had no
> intrinsic value. After someone ripped him a new one, he shut up on
> that topic. But, at one point in his attempt to justify his stand, he
> implied that he had been wiped out in the dot.com bust.
>

Wow, I've never seen him back down on anything, no matter how wrong he
was!

That's his most funnest trait!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That time has long passed in the real world.
>
> Unfortunately, no, it has not.
>
?
How would you know?

Youhaven't been in the real world since god knows when.

Bankruptcy boi


Bertie

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Airbus > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >In article >,
> > "Doug Semler" > wrote:
>
> >
> >I've been away from flying now for 31 years. Getting back to it in a few
> >weeks, lots of bookwork in my immediate future.
> >
> >If I end up retraining on something with a glass cockpit, it will be the
> >first time I've seen one outside a magazine.
>
> That's just great that you're getting back into it.

:}

> My bet is you'll find many more similarities than differences, compared
> with what you knew 31 years ago. In any case, I hope you'll be coming back
> to us to let us know how it's going, and to report on what differences you
> do find. I'd be particularly interested in knowing what differences you
> perceive in pilots' attitudes - toward flying, safety consciousness,
> utility - their overall mind set. . .

Absolutely.

> You will have some advantages because of your "historical" vantage point
> (don't take it badly ;-)).

My hair started going gray when I was about 15. I'm used to it.

> As systems always evolve, what we do today is
> directly derived from what we did yesterday, so you will easily grasp some
> concepts that the young whippersnappers have difficulty wrapping their
> minds around. Of course, there will be entirely new concepts to learn -
> like RNP, or ADS-b, but the learning was always part of the satisfaction in
> flying.
>
> My recommendation would be that you start with what's familiar - find a
> plane that's close to what you knew before.

Shouldn't be too hard, I logged time in Aeronca 7AC, C150, Cherokee 140,
Warrior and PA-28R Arrow. I still like tail dragging best.

> As mentioned earlier, the
> standard training environment hasn't changed radically - yet. Then work
> into the new stuff, and you'll find it's really great, and much easier than
> what you had to learn before.
>
> Best of luck - and report back to us. . .

One thing I'm still mulling over is whether to renew my medical and
refresh my PP-ASEL, or just go for the Sport Pilot ticket.

I have the same amount to learn either way.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote:

> -some snippage-
>
> > You will have some advantages because of your "historical" vantage point
> > (don't take it badly ;-)). As systems always evolve, what we do today is
> > directly derived from what we did yesterday, so you will easily grasp some
> > concepts that the young whippersnappers have difficulty wrapping their
> > minds around. Of course, there will be entirely new concepts to learn -
> > like RNP, or ADS-b, but the learning was always part of the satisfaction
> > in
> > flying.
>
> Don't forget Class A, Class C, Class D, etc :) My dad is just now getting
> to the point he doesn't refer to airspace using pre-1990 terms :)

Sectionals are a bit more cluttered than they used to be. Literally; I
was just comparing the current San Francisco sectional with one dated
July 1976.

At least the lumpy bits on the ground haven't changed too much.

[Steve Hix]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > That's just great that you're getting back into it.
> > My bet is you'll find many more similarities than differences,
>
> Heck, I'm probably flying the same plane you flew 31 years ago!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> 1974 Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Never flew a Pathfinder, about half my total was in the Warrior, though.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>In article >,
> "Doug Semler" > wrote:

>
>I've been away from flying now for 31 years. Getting back to it in a few
>weeks, lots of bookwork in my immediate future.
>
>If I end up retraining on something with a glass cockpit, it will be the
>first time I've seen one outside a magazine.


That's just great that you're getting back into it.
My bet is you'll find many more similarities than differences, compared
with what you knew 31 years ago. In any case, I hope you'll be coming back
to us to let us know how it's going, and to report on what differences you
do find. I'd be particularly interested in knowing what differences you
perceive in pilots' attitudes - toward flying, safety consciousness,
utility - their overall mind set. . .

You will have some advantages because of your "historical" vantage point
(don't take it badly ;-)). As systems always evolve, what we do today is
directly derived from what we did yesterday, so you will easily grasp some
concepts that the young whippersnappers have difficulty wrapping their
minds around. Of course, there will be entirely new concepts to learn -
like RNP, or ADS-b, but the learning was always part of the satisfaction in
flying.

My recommendation would be that you start with what's familiar - find a
plane that's close to what you knew before. As mentioned earlier, the
standard training environment hasn't changed radically - yet. Then work
into the new stuff, and you'll find it's really great, and much easier than
what you had to learn before.

Best of luck - and report back to us. . .

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
> ...
>>
<.>
> This has turned into a MUCH bigger deal in R.A.P than it was in real life
> :)
>

Now, THERE's a surprise....(not)

Don't sweat it.

--
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.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
>After someone ripped him a new one, he shut up
> on that topic. But, at one point in his attempt to justify his
> stand, he implied that he had been wiped out in the dot.com bust.
>

Is there any way we can get whoever that was to hang out here for a while.
He has been ripped many times here and it never seems to shut him up.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>>After someone ripped him a new one, he shut up
>> on that topic. But, at one point in his attempt to justify his
>> stand, he implied that he had been wiped out in the dot.com bust.
>>
>
> Is there any way we can get whoever that was to hang out here for a while.
> He has been ripped many times here and it never seems to shut him up.
>
What are you suggesting, we need to bring in a hired "key"?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Doug Semler" > wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?
>> >
>> > Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped out Cessna
>> > 150, just like a couple of generations before him...
>> >
>> > The only thing glass in that plane is probably the electrical
>> > insulators...
>> >
>>
>>
>> I thought you were gonna say the vacuum tubes <g>
>
> The steam gauge covers, too.
>
> I've been away from flying now for 31 years. Getting back to it in a few
> weeks, lots of bookwork in my immediate future.
>
> If I end up retraining on something with a glass cockpit, it will be the
> first time I've seen one outside a magazine.

Glad to hear it, good luck. I just went through this a couple of years
ago, after a 17 year layoff. Fortunately the Compass & Clock are still where
they used to be.

Al G

[Jim Macklin]

Compasses and dead reckoning still work. Remember that
little blurb in the instrument rules 61.65, Navigation,
including dead reckoning appropriate to IFR.

Procedure turns, and NORDO are just some of the DR
situations, GPS and or VOR OTS are others.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> I was flying to Reno last week and there was a GPS outage
part of the way
| > there. I had a couple guys with me and they just looked
at me when the MX20
| > and the 296 went blank. I just tuned in to the next VOR
and kept going 10
| > minutes later they came back.
|
| Interesting. I've had a similar experience where I lost
one (or two)
| GPS's (for reasons unknown) -- but I've never lost *both*
of them.
|
| I'm not saying VORs don't have a place anymore. I'm just
surprised to
| hear primary students flying around solely by reference to
them. It
| seems rather quaint, with so many students training in
glass
| cockpits...
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Jim Macklin]

good show


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> How many students AREN'T training behind glass?
|
| Well, my 17-year-old son is training in an old, clapped
out Cessna
| 150, just like a couple of generations before him...
|
| The only thing glass in that plane is probably the
electrical
| insulators...
|
| ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Ken Finney]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote:
>
>> -some snippage-
>>
>> > You will have some advantages because of your "historical" vantage
>> > point
>> > (don't take it badly ;-)). As systems always evolve, what we do today
>> > is
>> > directly derived from what we did yesterday, so you will easily grasp
>> > some
>> > concepts that the young whippersnappers have difficulty wrapping their
>> > minds around. Of course, there will be entirely new concepts to learn -
>> > like RNP, or ADS-b, but the learning was always part of the
>> > satisfaction
>> > in
>> > flying.
>>
>> Don't forget Class A, Class C, Class D, etc :) My dad is just now
>> getting
>> to the point he doesn't refer to airspace using pre-1990 terms :)
>
> Sectionals are a bit more cluttered than they used to be. Literally; I
> was just comparing the current San Francisco sectional with one dated
> July 1976.
>
> At least the lumpy bits on the ground haven't changed too much.

Different clutter. Fewer airports. ;^(

[Airbus]

In article >, says...

>>
>> Sectionals are a bit more cluttered than they used to be. Literally; I
>> was just comparing the current San Francisco sectional with one dated
>> July 1976.
>>
>> At least the lumpy bits on the ground haven't changed too much.
>
>Different clutter. Fewer airports. ;^(
>


Not so sure!
By coincidence, I have been studying some circa 1966 sectionals from the NE
sector, and I find more stability than change. The depiction of navaids has
changed. I find it quaint that the 1966 sectionals listed AM radio stations, I
assume so that pilots could tune their ADF's to them. The readability of the
old charts is probably a bit better, even if this means the amount of NAV
information is somewhat more sparse. As for airports - many have
disappeared, but quite a few have been created as well, and most of the
previously existing have expanded. Overall, not too bad a picture - mostly a
picture of progress.