Commercial Written

[[email protected]]

Any of y'all taken the FAA commercial written recently?

We're having a spell of bad weather here, so I got the ASA commercial
test prep book for hangar flying fun. I've got all the flight
experience needed for a commercial, minus the specific practical test
preparation, so I guess I'll try for that rating for my next BFR.

What I see is that the questions are still all full of what I call
"Simon says" type problems: absurdly picky gotchas along with
impossible to read fuzzy graphs. In one of them the "right" answer is
689 feet ground roll and one of the wrong answers is 716 feet. Now how
can anyone read those fuzzy pictures precisely enough to tell the
difference?

So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
book to read the charts from on the actual computer test? How is the
test run? It's been quite awhile since I took private and instrument.
Things might have changed since then.

One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've never
flown one. The lazy slugs at the FAA must have written those questions
25 years ago and haven't written any new ones on more modern equipment
in a generation.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:06:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>
>So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
>book to read the charts from on the actual computer test?


Download it here:

<http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-1C.pdf>

[BillJ]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:06:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>
>>So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
>>book to read the charts from on the actual computer test?
>
>
>
> Download it here:
>
> <http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-1C.pdf>
>
You get both printed and computer screen charts. Not fuzzy

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-05, > wrote:
> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
> been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've never
> flown one.

One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home airport's ILS
approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal with that if I can't
get an ADF in the airplane?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:47:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home airport's ILS
>approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal with that if I can't
>get an ADF in the airplane?


Do an ILS elsewhere, that doesn't require an ADF.

[David Kazdan]

Right. I did mine with Lasergrade last Wednesday, it's like he said.

David

BillJ wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:06:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
>>> book to read the charts from on the actual computer test?
>>
>>
>>
>> Download it here:
>>
>> <http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_questions/media/FAA-CT-8080-1C.pdf>
>>
>>
> You get both printed and computer screen charts. Not fuzzy

[gary]

IFR certified GPS is allowed in lieu of ADF for identifying approach
fixes.


On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:47:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-01-05, > wrote:
>> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
>> been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've never
>> flown one.
>
>One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home airport's ILS
>approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal with that if I can't
>get an ADF in the airplane?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-07, gary > wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:47:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:
>>On 2008-01-05, > wrote:
>>> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
>>> been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've never
>>> flown one.
>>One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home airport's ILS
>>approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal with that if I can't
>>get an ADF in the airplane?
>IFR certified GPS is allowed in lieu of ADF for identifying approach
>fixes.

Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is listed as
ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an NDB at the outer
marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example, all I'd have to do would be
to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at MONTZ and then I'd be in good shape?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:4ab3f73b-091e-4671-8bcb-
:

> Any of y'all taken the FAA commercial written recently?
>
> We're having a spell of bad weather here, so I got the ASA commercial
> test prep book for hangar flying fun. I've got all the flight
> experience needed for a commercial, minus the specific practical test
> preparation, so I guess I'll try for that rating for my next BFR.
>
> What I see is that the questions are still all full of what I call
> "Simon says" type problems: absurdly picky gotchas along with
> impossible to read fuzzy graphs. In one of them the "right" answer is
> 689 feet ground roll and one of the wrong answers is 716 feet. Now how
> can anyone read those fuzzy pictures precisely enough to tell the
> difference?
>
> So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
> book to read the charts from on the actual computer test? How is the
> test run? It's been quite awhile since I took private and instrument.
> Things might have changed since then.
>
> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
> been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF?


Yesterday.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-07, gary > wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:47:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:
>>>On 2008-01-05, > wrote:
>>>> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has
>>>> it been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've
>>>> never flown one.
>>>One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home
>>>airport's ILS approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal
>>>with that if I can't get an ADF in the airplane?
>>IFR certified GPS is allowed in lieu of ADF for identifying approach
>>fixes.
>
> Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is
> listed as ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an NDB
> at the outer marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example, all I'd
> have to do would be to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at MONTZ and
> then I'd be in good shape?



The usual reason an ADF is required is to confirm your altitude at that
point before you continue to DH. You can't just do an ILS with no way to
check your range against your altimeter. There is no way we would use INS
for that in my company either. DME, VOR or ADF has to be in place to do it
by our book.
It is possible that the go around is the reason, but you'd have to show me
the plate.


Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jay Maynard > wrote in
> :
>> Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is
>> listed as ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an NDB
>> at the outer marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example, all I'd
>> have to do would be to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at MONTZ and
>> then I'd be in good shape?
> The usual reason an ADF is required is to confirm your altitude at that
> point before you continue to DH. You can't just do an ILS with no way to
> check your range against your altimeter. There is no way we would use INS
> for that in my company either. DME, VOR or ADF has to be in place to do it
> by our book.
> It is possible that the go around is the reason, but you'd have to show me
> the plate.

The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .

If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your altitude at
that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the outer marker?
It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda hard to use as the
missed approach point (though you can use that as the marker as well, if
your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing something, like, say, you don't
use the marker for that point in the first place?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-07, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard > wrote in
>> :
>>> Looking at the approach plate, I think the reason the approach is
>>> listed as ADF REQUIRED is because the miss calls for holding at an
>>> NDB at the outer marker, MONTZ. That would say that, for example,
>>> all I'd have to do would be to tell, say, a GNS-430 to point me at
>>> MONTZ and then I'd be in good shape?
>> The usual reason an ADF is required is to confirm your altitude at
>> that point before you continue to DH. You can't just do an ILS with
>> no way to check your range against your altimeter. There is no way
>> we would use INS for that in my company either. DME, VOR or ADF has
>> to be in place to do it by our book.
>> It is possible that the go around is the reason, but you'd have to
>> show me the plate.
>
> The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .
>
> If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
> altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the
> outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda
> hard to use as the missed approach point (though you can use that as
> the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing
> something, like, say, you don't use the marker for that point in the
> first place?

Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around the
place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't really an
issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to be the go
around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage either. That can
often be substituted for many components of an approach, and if there is
radar, they can probably waive the ADF requirement with vectors if you
go around, but it'd have to be published like that just in case.
I'm not accustomed to looking at NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one
in years, but still I can't see any other possible reason for it. Might
be worth looking at the competition's plate to help flesh it out.


Bertie

[Steven Barnes]

If radar is an allowed substitute, then it would read "RADAR or ADF
Required", right? The lack of "RADAR" on this one means we need some
equipment in the plane?

One of our ILS's here have ADF required, but I've shot it with no ADF or GPS
in the plane. Granted it's been during hours when our Class C approach radar
was running.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
[snip]
> >
> > The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .
> >
> > If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
> > altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at the
> > outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but that's kinda
> > hard to use as the missed approach point (though you can use that as
> > the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out). Or am I missing
> > something, like, say, you don't use the marker for that point in the
> > first place?
>
> Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
> I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
> You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around the
> place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't really an
> issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to be the go
> around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage either. That can
> often be substituted for many components of an approach, and if there is
> radar, they can probably waive the ADF requirement with vectors if you
> go around, but it'd have to be published like that just in case.
> I'm not accustomed to looking at NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one
> in years, but still I can't see any other possible reason for it. Might
> be worth looking at the competition's plate to help flesh it out.
>
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Steven Barnes" > wrote in
t:

> If radar is an allowed substitute, then it would read "RADAR or ADF
> Required", right? The lack of "RADAR" on this one means we need some
> equipment in the plane?

I would imagine so. The nearest equivelant I've seen to this woudl be if
ILS ADF were the title of the aproach. In this case there would usually
be an ADF required, but it can be waived on request with Radar. If the
NDB is US then it would usually be noted on the plate that such and such
alternative fix may be used.
>
> One of our ILS's here have ADF required, but I've shot it with no ADF
> or GPS in the plane. Granted it's been during hours when our Class C
> approach radar was running.


Well, it sounds entirely reasonable to me to do so. But if it's for an
exam the OP wants to get it right. On the day, if ATC were to clear me
for it and I was to query the ADF requirement, then the woudl almost
certainly give me an alternative like "In the event of a missed approach
maintain runway heading and expect vectors"

I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
Might be worth calling the tower!

Bertie
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
> [snip]
>> >
>> > The plate is at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/05353I31.PDF .
>> >
>> > If it weren't the missed approach point, wouldn't you check your
>> > altitude at that point by using the marker receiver, since it's at
>> > the outer marker? It's also 6.3 DME from the FRM VOR/DME, but
>> > that's kinda hard to use as the missed approach point (though you
>> > can use that as the marker as well, if your marker receiver's out).
>> > Or am I missing something, like, say, you don't use the marker for
>> > that point in the first place?
>>
>> Yeah, sorry, you're right. Most places we go no longer have them.
>> I see your point. Plenty of aids there to do the ILS without the ADF.
>> You have a dme and the markers. there's no major high ground around
>> the place so absolute precision in tracking on the go around isn't
>> really an issue either, but I think you're probably right. It has to
>> be the go around. Presumably there's no gaurunteed radar coverage
>> either. That can often be substituted for many components of an
>> approach, and if there is radar, they can probably waive the ADF
>> requirement with vectors if you go around, but it'd have to be
>> published like that just in case. I'm not accustomed to looking at
>> NOS charts. In fact I haven't seen one in years, but still I can't
>> see any other possible reason for it. Might be worth looking at the
>> competition's plate to help flesh it out.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-08, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
> Might be worth calling the tower!

What tower? FRM (Fairmont (Minnesota) Muni) doesn't have one of those.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-01-08, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> I can't answer definitively why it's required in this case, though.
>> Might be worth calling the tower!
>
> What tower? FRM (Fairmont (Minnesota) Muni) doesn't have one of those.

Ah, OK. That would go some way towards explaining why they want to keep you
in your box while you're shooting this.
the approach facility then.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

> Yesterday.
>
> Bertie-

Today: two hours ago.

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
off course. Who navigates like that?

I had forgotten the formula for that, so I tried using the sine formula
for figuring out triangle sides and angles. I only had my Jeppeson
TechStar calculator with me that doesn't have trig functions. No problem
though. The testing program has a built-in calculator that did. That
stupid calculator gave the results in radians though.

wrote:
> Any of y'all taken the FAA commercial written recently?
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address) wrote:
> I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
> asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
> off course. Who navigates like that?


I can't say that I ever did but I remember the formula.


> I had forgotten the formula for that, so I tried using the sine formula
> for figuring out triangle sides and angles. I only had my Jeppeson
> TechStar calculator with me that doesn't have trig functions. No problem
> though. The testing program has a built-in calculator that did. That
> stupid calculator gave the results in radians though.


Time to station = (minutes between bearing change X 60) / degrees of bearing
change. A shortcut is to note the time required for a 10 degree bearing change
in seconds, then divide that number by 10. That will also give you the time to
station in minutes.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address) wrote:
> I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the questions that
> asked how many minutes to station it was when you some degrees or miles
> off course. Who navigates like that?

Yeah!

There's no answer that states "The time shown in the DISTANCE TO NEXT box!"

[Jim Macklin]

Everybody navigates with dead reckoning when the electrons
stop.



"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
| Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address) wrote:
| > I took it a bit over 2 years ago. I didn't like all the
questions that
| > asked how many minutes to station it was when you some
degrees or miles
| > off course. Who navigates like that?
|
| Yeah!
|
| There's no answer that states "The time shown in the
DISTANCE TO NEXT box!"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> Everybody navigates with dead reckoning when the electrons
> stop.
>


Not neccesarily...


Bertie

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-01-05 14:47:35 -0800, Jay Maynard
> said:

> On 2008-01-05, > wrote:
>> One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
>> been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF? I've never
>> flown one.
>
> One question I'm having in my airplane search is that my home airport's ILS
> approach (FRM ILS 13) requires an ADF. How do I deal with that if I can't
> get an ADF in the airplane?

A lot of airports use an NDB for missed approach instructions, or they
use the NDB as a fix for other types of approaches. If it is part of
the missed approach instructions, you simply ask ATC for alternate
missed approach instructions. Pilots do this all the time at airports
like Bremerton (PWT).

Fairmont's ILS 13 plate does not leave any room for doubt, however. The
ADF is required, so I guess they don't want to give you any alternate
missed approach instructions. The only answer here is that you just
don't fly the ILS.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 7:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:4ab3f73b-091e-4671-8bcb-
> :
>
>
>
> > Any of y'all taken the FAA commercial written recently?
>
> > We're having a spell of bad weather here, so I got the ASA commercial
> > test prep book for hangar flying fun. I've got all the flight
> > experience needed for a commercial, minus the specific practical test
> > preparation, so I guess I'll try for that rating for my next BFR.
>
> > What I see is that the questions are still all full of what I call
> > "Simon says" type problems: absurdly picky gotchas along with
> > impossible to read fuzzy graphs. In one of them the "right" answer is
> > 689 feet ground roll and one of the wrong answers is 716 feet. Now how
> > can anyone read those fuzzy pictures precisely enough to tell the
> > difference?
>
> > So, for anyone's who's done it lately: do you get a printed, fuzzy
> > book to read the charts from on the actual computer test? How is the
> > test run? It's been quite awhile since I took private and instrument.
> > Things might have changed since then.
>
> > One more rant: why do they have so many ADF questions? How long has it
> > been since anyone's seen an airplane with a working ADF?
>
> Yesterday.
>
> Bertie

How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time that
you are a very special sort of aviator.

I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a working ADF.
The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling one around have all
had them placarded inop.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:7d3779b6-9ef2-4b7d-833e-
:
>>
>> Yesterday.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time that
> you are a very special sort of aviator.


Yeah, only speshul peeple fly with ADFs.

>
> I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a working ADF.
> The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling one around have all
> had them placarded inop.


We can't dispatch without at least one working if an approach requiring one
is anticipated.
I suggest you stop flying ****.



Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:7d3779b6-9ef2-4b7d-833e-
> :
>
>
>
> >> Yesterday.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time that
> > you are a very special sort of aviator.
>
> Yeah, only speshul peeple fly with ADFs.
>
>
>
> > I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a working ADF.
> > The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling one around have all
> > had them placarded inop.
>
> We can't dispatch without at least one working if an approach requiring one
> is anticipated.
> I suggest you stop flying ****.
>
> Bertie
>
>

A good suggestion, no doubt, but beat up old **** with half the
instruments inop tends to be what's available.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 6:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:7d3779b6-9ef2-4b7d-833e-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Yesterday.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time
>> > that you are a very special sort of aviator.
>>
>> Yeah, only speshul peeple fly with ADFs.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a working
>> > ADF. The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling one around
>> > have all had them placarded inop.
>>
>> We can't dispatch without at least one working if an approach
>> requiring one is anticipated.
>> I suggest you stop flying ****.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> A good suggestion, no doubt, but beat up old **** with half the
> instruments inop tends to be what's available.
>
How do you get your sports scores or do your lazy eighs to oldies
without one?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 6:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:7d3779b6-9ef2-4b7d-833e-
> >> :
>
> >> >> Yesterday.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time
> >> > that you are a very special sort of aviator.
>
> >> Yeah, only speshul peeple fly with ADFs.
>
> >> > I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a working
> >> > ADF. The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling one around
> >> > have all had them placarded inop.
>
> >> We can't dispatch without at least one working if an approach
> >> requiring one is anticipated.
> >> I suggest you stop flying ****.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > A good suggestion, no doubt, but beat up old **** with half the
> > instruments inop tends to be what's available.
>
> How do you get your sports scores or do your lazy eighs to oldies
> without one?
>
> Bertie

Oh, I am insufficiently advanced in piloting skills to have realized
the importance of doing that. I will seek out a working ADF tout de
suite.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 17, 6:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:192b9a8a-666c-4103-8fd3-70d7156033a1
@d21g2000prg.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 17, 6:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:7d3779b6-9ef2-4b7d-833e-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >> Yesterday.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > How very special. Unsurprising, as it's been clear for some time
>> >> > that you are a very special sort of aviator.
>>
>> >> Yeah, only speshul peeple fly with ADFs.
>>
>> >> > I'm done with the written now but still have yet to see a
>> >> > working ADF. The few old dogs I've seen that are still hauling
>> >> > one around have all had them placarded inop.
>>
>> >> We can't dispatch without at least one working if an approach
>> >> requiring one is anticipated.
>> >> I suggest you stop flying ****.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > A good suggestion, no doubt, but beat up old **** with half the
>> > instruments inop tends to be what's available.
>>
>> How do you get your sports scores or do your lazy eighs to oldies
>> without one?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh, I am insufficiently advanced in piloting skills to have realized
> the importance of doing that. I will seek out a working ADF tout de
> suite.
>
>

Good boy.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-897F36.19344118012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> How do you get your sports scores or do your lazy eighs to oldies
>> without one?
>
> XM Radio on the Garmin GPS496
>

Ah! Can you download itunes with it?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

John Smith > wrote in news:jsmith-94D87B.19142520012008
@news-server.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> >> How do you get your sports scores or do your lazy eighs to oldies
>> >> without one?
>
>> > XM Radio on the Garmin GPS496
>
>> Ah! Can you download itunes with it?
>
> Not yet!
>

Shouldn't be long now....

Bertie