i think I flew into class c airspace accidentally withoutestablishing communication

[[email protected]]

tonight I went for a night flight with a buddy. We had a great trip
there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
east instead of southeast. By the time I realized this, we were way
off course. I fixed our course back to my home airport, but I think
he also changed the GPS to where the map doesn't show the airspace
borders because soon after getting back on course I looked to my right
and saw a class C airport slightly in the distance. I couldn't really
judge how close we were, but we were close enough to where I was
probably in thier airspace. I kind of froze up and wasn't sure what
to do, so I just continued on to my home airport.

Am I going to get in trouble for this? It was completely accidental,
and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.

Thanks

[NW_Pilot]

NASA forum oops baad beef in the E* tradition of the spelling.... always
carry a current chart and know where you are at all times take it as a
lesson learned.... Don't Depend on GPS depend on your eyes and a chart....

SLR



> wrote in message
...
> tonight I went for a night flight with a buddy. We had a great trip
> there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
> somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
> east instead of southeast. By the time I realized this, we were way
> off course. I fixed our course back to my home airport, but I think
> he also changed the GPS to where the map doesn't show the airspace
> borders because soon after getting back on course I looked to my right
> and saw a class C airport slightly in the distance. I couldn't really
> judge how close we were, but we were close enough to where I was
> probably in thier airspace. I kind of froze up and wasn't sure what
> to do, so I just continued on to my home airport.
>
> Am I going to get in trouble for this? It was completely accidental,
> and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
> any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
> pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.
>
> Thanks

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Smith" > wrote
>
> go to this link and follow the instructions
>
> http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html

And don't talk about it here, or anywhere else, until that has been
completed.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:48:07 -0800 (PST), wrote
in
>:

>It was completely accidental,
>and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
>any input?

Dear RODNEY JAMES FAULKINER,

It sounds like caress operation to me.
http://tinyurl.com/2ywg3t

The clock is ticking.
Consider: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/briefing/br_6.html
The Immunity Concept

(FAA Advisory Circular AC No. 00-46D)

c. The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or
occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, or the
FAR, is considered by FAA to be indicative of a constructive
attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations.
Accordingly, although a finding of a violation may be made,
neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed
if:

The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;

The violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident, or
action under 49U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of
qualification or competency, which are wholly excluded from this
policy:

The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action
to have committed a violation of 49 U.S. C. Subtitle VIII, or any
regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the
date of the occurrence; and

The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or
she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the
incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and
7b. NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Am I going to get in trouble for this? It was completely accidental,
> and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
> any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
> pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.

Fill out the NASA form. Hopefully, no harm, no foul.

However, you've got some more learnin' to do about flying. Rule #1 is that
no one touches the plane in any way, shape or form, while in flight without
express permission to do so. This includes all flight controls, engine
controls, and navigational equipment. If your friend did this without
permission, you should have shut him down. And if you gave him permission
to goof around with your primary navigational tool, you've now learned how
crazy that can be.

Rule #2 is always maintain situational awareness. This often means that you
must curtail the social aspects of being with your buddies in order to
concentrate on what you're doing. Not only did you endanger yourself and
your friend by goofing around, you have no idea what kind of headaches you
may have caused air traffic control and any airline passengers who may have
been diverted.

Hopefully you learned some valuable lessons. Better yet, hopefully some
other newbies here learn the lesson from you without having to repeat it
themselves. Thanks for sharing the story.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Al Borowski]

On Jan 27, 12:10 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> Dear [name omitted[
>

Did you really have to put his full name here, in cleartext?

Now anyone using google can search his name and find this thread. It
was a serious stuffup, but that was uncalled for.

Al.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Al Borowski" > wrote
> Did you really have to put his full name here, in cleartext?
>
> Now anyone using google can search his name and find this thread. It
> was a serious stuffup, but that was uncalled for.

That would be standard operating procedure for Larry, if that is what he
did. I avoid the problem with larry by not reading him.
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> tonight I went for a night flight with a buddy. We had a great trip
> there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
> somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
> east instead of southeast. By the time I realized this, we were way
> off course. I fixed our course back to my home airport, but I think
> he also changed the GPS to where the map doesn't show the airspace
> borders because soon after getting back on course I looked to my right
> and saw a class C airport slightly in the distance. I couldn't really
> judge how close we were, but we were close enough to where I was
> probably in thier airspace. I kind of froze up and wasn't sure what
> to do, so I just continued on to my home airport.
>
> Am I going to get in trouble for this? It was completely accidental,
> and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
> any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
> pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.
>
> Thanks

So where were you, for sure? Does your GPS leave tracks, or breadcrumbs, or whatever they call it? Where were your
landmarks? I hope you weren't using GPS all by itself! What was your altitude? Depending on altitude you could have the
C airport in sight but you could have been well clear...

[[email protected]]

I second Jay's remarks. When I read your post, Rodney, I was disturbed
by your failure to take seriously your pilot-in-command
responsibilities, with regard to crew/passenger management and with
regard to ongoing navigation (which you appear to have simply ignored,
except for looking at the GPS screen without even periodically
reviewing its settings). Your attitude was appropriate for an
impromptu drive in a car, not for piloting an airplane.

Furthermore, your main concern afterward seems to be whether you'll
get caught, rather than whether your negligence risked causing a
crash, and might do so in the future.

I'd be afraid to fly with you or near you until and unless you
reassess your priorities. I urge you to discuss these matters with an
instructor (perhaps one you haven't flown with before) and seek
further training. There's no shame in that--on the contrary, it would
be to your credit to show that you recognize that there's a problem
and that you will do what's needed to resolve it.

Good luck to you.





On Jan 26, 9:50*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Am I going to get in trouble for this? *It was completely accidental,
> > and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. *Anybody have
> > any input? *I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. *I just got my private
> > pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.
>
> Fill out the NASA form. *Hopefully, no harm, no foul.
>
> However, you've got some more learnin' to do about flying. * Rule #1 is that
> no one touches the plane in any way, shape or form, while in flight without
> express permission to do so. *This includes all flight controls, engine
> controls, and navigational equipment. *If your friend did this without
> permission, you should have shut him down. *And if you gave him permission
> to goof around with your primary navigational tool, you've now learned how
> crazy that can be.
>
> Rule #2 is always maintain situational awareness. *This often means that you
> must curtail the social aspects of being with your buddies in order to
> concentrate on what you're doing. *Not only did you endanger yourself and
> your friend by goofing around, you have no idea what kind of headaches you
> may have caused air traffic control and any airline passengers who may have
> been diverted.
>
> Hopefully you learned some valuable lessons. *Better yet, hopefully some
> other newbies here learn the lesson from you without having to repeat it
> themselves. *Thanks for sharing the story.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Flying 8]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:10:52 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:48:07 -0800 (PST), wrote
>in
>:
>
>>It was completely accidental,
>>and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
>>any input?
>
>Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX

You have got to be kidding me... Are you for real?

[[email protected]]

I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
seems uncalled for.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
> seems uncalled for.


It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
detrimental act to flight safety.

If some pilot out here feels after reading that post that they can't
report these things in good faith, someone may actually be killed down
the line because of what that poster did.
I can't condemn that kind of response enough. When new pilots try and do
things right after making an in-flight error, the very least the
community can do is to back that pilot's behavior to the fullest.
I sincerely hope that you realize you have the backing of the vast
majority of pilots here.
Go ahead and file the report, forget what this single poster did, and
learn from the error.
I have no doubt whatsoever that a new pilot who, as you have done by
asking for advice on a matter like this, will gain from the experience
and be a better pilot in the future. By taking the action you have, you
have made flying safer for all of us, and I commend what you are doing.

Best of luck to you.
Dudley Henriques

[Phil J]

On Jan 26, 11:38*am, wrote:
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. *I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night.


It strikes me that you really don't know whether or not you busted
Class C. If I was you I would try to find out for sure. If you
didn't enter Class C, then you are in the clear on this incident.

Phil

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
> seems uncalled for.

Because Larry is an idiot as anyone who has followed this ng for more
than 3 months quickly figures out.

Matt

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 10:20*am, Al Borowski > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:10 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear [name omitted[
>
> Did you really have to put his full name here, in cleartext?
>
> Now anyone using google can search his name and find this thread. It
> was a serious stuffup, but that was uncalled for.
>
> Al.

I'm fairly new to this RAP and I've already learned that Larry is an
idiot who likes to get into other people's business.

Wil

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jan 26, 12:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.
>
> If some pilot out here feels after reading that post that they can't
> report these things in good faith, someone may actually be killed down
> the line because of what that poster did.
> I can't condemn that kind of response enough. When new pilots try and do.

Dudley,

Thank you so much for speaking out strongly against this
"snitching" behavior. I have learned so much about flight safety from
reading "I learned about flying from that" type of articles, NASA
Callback reports and postings such as that of Rfaulki. I can not
agree more with your statements.

Best regards,

Hai Longworth
Permanent Student Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 12:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> > the safety of others. *I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> > made a serious mistake at night. *I do appreciate all the options you
> > all have laid out for me. *I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> > And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? *That just
> > seems uncalled for.
>
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.

I agree that the poster's full name should not have been disclosed--
especially in all caps, as if to rub it in.

On the other hand, it's of no practical consequence. Anyone looking at
the email address would guess that the poster's name is R. Faulkiner,
and the FAA online database--which is presumably where Larry looked up
his information--lists only two such pilots, the other of whom has a
commercial certificate. But the FAA doesn't mine r.a.p. in search of
violations, and filing an ASRS form will provide protection in any
event.

I'm still a little concerned that the poster might not realize that he
didn't just make an isolated mistake of possibly busting Class C, but
rather made a few ongoing mistakes leading up to that--failing to
verify his heading every minute or so (off by 45 degrees until way off
course), following the line on the GPS screen instead of actively
navigating, and failing to adequately brief and supervise his
passenger. If this was his first night XC without an instructor, it
should probably have been solo rather than taking on the extra
responsibility and distraction of a passenger. I offer these comments
not as disparagements, but as constructive criticisms. It just seems
like a generally higher degree of caution and conservative decision-
making may be called for, to avoid getting in over your head.

Again, good luck!

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 2:18*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> > > the safety of others. *I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> > > made a serious mistake at night. *I do appreciate all the options you
> > > all have laid out for me. *I will fill out the NASA form immediately..
> > > And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? *That just
> > > seems uncalled for.
>
> > It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> > detrimental act to flight safety.
>
> I agree that the poster's full name should not have been disclosed--
> especially in all caps, as if to rub it in.
>
> On the other hand, it's of no practical consequence. Anyone looking at
> the email address would guess that the poster's name is R. Faulkiner,
> and the FAA online database--which is presumably where Larry looked up
> his information--lists only two such pilots, the other of whom has a
> commercial certificate. But the FAA doesn't mine r.a.p. in search of
> violations, and filing an ASRS form will provide protection in any
> event.
>
> I'm still a little concerned that the poster might not realize that he
> didn't just make an isolated mistake of possibly busting Class C, but
> rather made a few ongoing mistakes leading up to that--failing to
> verify his heading every minute or so (off by 45 degrees until way off
> course), following the line on the GPS screen instead of actively
> navigating, and failing to adequately brief and supervise his
> passenger. If this was his first night XC without an instructor, it
> should probably have been solo rather than taking on the extra
> responsibility and distraction of a passenger. I offer these comments
> not as disparagements, but as constructive criticisms. It just seems
> like a generally higher degree of caution and conservative decision-
> making may be called for, to avoid getting in over your head.
>
> Again, good luck!

I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
prepared from now on when I fly.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 2:26*pm, wrote:
> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. *This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.

Great! Then I'm happy to share the skies with you!

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 27, 6:38*am, wrote:
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. *I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night. *I do appreciate all the options you
> all have laid out for me. *I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? *That just
> seems uncalled for.

I'm not yet a pilot, but it sounds like you were acting as if you were
flying IFR -how else could you be thrown off course by the GPS? I've
not done my night rating work but I've been told that flying VFR at
night requires constant attention to lights, compass heading(s)/
bearings and gloomy shadows to know your position. I think the GPS
should be considered to be only an aid for VFR pilots, not the primary
navigation tool (which is eyes, brain and chart) and if I am right in
my student pilot opinion, the autopilot should be slaved to compass
and position checked by GPS -not dictated by GPS (until you are IFR).
I would welcome more experienced pilots to comment on this -should a
VFR pilot slave the autopilot to GPS or compass?

You started a good thread here and it's great that you admit your
mistake for us to learn from it.

Cheers

[george]

On Jan 27, 3:10 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

and narked on a fellow pilot who was making an enquiry as to what
action he should pursue after he -might- have entered restricted
airspace.

What a nasty little person !

[Roy Smith]

In article
>,
wrote:

> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.

This sounds like a successful flight. You made a mistake, realized what
you had done, and corrected it. Nobody got hurt, no metal got bent, no
paperwork got generated, and you learned from your mistake.

May all your flights in the future be as successful.

[peter]

On Jan 26, 10:00 am, Phil J > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:38 am, wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> > the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> > made a serious mistake at night.
>
> It strikes me that you really don't know whether or not you busted
> Class C. If I was you I would try to find out for sure. If you
> didn't enter Class C, then you are in the clear on this incident.

One thing to check would be whether the GPS you used maintained a
tracklog record of the flight. If so, that tracklog may still be
available and can be compared to the airspace maps of the area to
determine if any violation occurred.

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
...
> tonight I went for a night flight with a buddy. We had a great trip
> there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
> somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
> east instead of southeast. By the time I realized this...


Congratulations on your new rating. Welcome to the fraternity.

Let me guess... You hadn't plotted a course as part of your flight planning?
GPS is not a substitute for paper flight planning.

It is best to already know what course you are going to be flying, and for
how long, before you buckle yourself into the plane. That way, any big
difference between actual and what you had planned will be quickly detected.
Also, that leaves you prepared if your GPS goes TU, or if you just push the
wrong button. Following a bug on a moving map is great, but you need to have a
plan (including course lines) before your wheels leave the pavement. The
on-line AOPA flight planner is great for this, and produces kneeboard-sized
printouts that are a great start to your flight planning. Be sure to write in
frequencies for any fields that you may possibly fly near, divert to, or need to
communicate with.

Your examiner probably told you that your new SEL ticket was just a "license
to learn". Chalk up one lesson on flight planning.

Vaughn

[Phil J]

On Jan 26, 1:26*pm, wrote:

>
> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. *This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.- Hide quoted text -
>
This is the best kind of learning experience. Nobody got hurt and
nothing got broken. Plus, since you had the courage to share it here,
other newbies like me can learn from it also. Thanks for posting!

Phil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), wrote
in
>:

>And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?

Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
identity, you should take steps to conceal it.

> That just seems uncalled for.

It was intended as a slap in the face to get your attention. It's
clear your CFI wasn't able to impart the significance of becoming an
airman to you. That is an area of flight training the FAA seems to
have virtually overlooked. Becoming an airman is (or should be) a
life-changing experience.

It's evident from your post, that you don't yet clearly appreciate
your role in navigating the skies. You are an airman now. If the
_responsibility_ associated with that hasn't dawned on you yet, it
will as you build experiences like the one you related.

You are Pilot In Command! Those with whom and over whom you fly rely
upon YOUR judgment to keep them safe, and that demands that you comply
with regulations ALL THE TIME. If you fail to do that, you have
failed in your responsibility to yourself, your passenger, and all of
your fellow airmen who share the sky with you.

Flying is not a hobby; it serious business, life-and-death business.
If your assessment of the weather forecast for the flight is an issue,
will you have the courage to stand steadfast in your refusal to fly
your companions home from Las Vegas in time for them to clock-in at
work? Or will you permit their complaints to influence you to do
something you know is wrong? They will push you mercilessly to
depart, but tacitly they expect you to keep them safe. You'll have to
firmly assume command of the situation and do what you know is right.
Give it some thought. Please.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:37:43 -0800, Mike Flying 8
> wrote:

>You have got to be kidding me... Are you for real?


Awful! Totally lame!

What possible purpose would that post serve?

[Matt Whiting]

george wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:10 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> and narked on a fellow pilot who was making an enquiry as to what
> action he should pursue after he -might- have entered restricted
> airspace.
>
> What a nasty little person !

What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
everywhere! :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> You are Pilot In Command!

And you are a idiot!

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>> seems uncalled for.
>
> Because Larry is an idiot as anyone who has followed this ng for more
> than 3 months quickly figures out.

Three months? Are you a slow learner???

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> You are Pilot In Command!
>
>And you are a idiot!


Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>
>>And you are a idiot!
>
>
> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>
>

Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.


Bertie

[george]

On Jan 27, 11:50 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 3:10 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > and narked on a fellow pilot who was making an enquiry as to what
> > action he should pursue after he -might- have entered restricted
> > airspace.
>
> > What a nasty little person !
>
> What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
> everywhere! :-)

Whoops ....
My apologies to all the 'persons' out there for claiming this ******
to be a part of the human race

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>>
>>>And you are a idiot!
>>
>>
>> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>>
>>
>Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.

Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
contains a grammatical error.

Lacking any rational argument to support it, it is just an immature
emotional outburst. If someone is able to provide any rational
justification for Mr. Whiting's contention, then let's hear it.
Otherwise, perhaps it is you who lack the depth to infer my meaning.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.

You haven't tried.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>
> You haven't tried.


QED


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>>>
>>>>And you are a idiot!
>>>
>>>
>>> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>>>
>>>
>>Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
>
> Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
> contains a grammatical error.


Snort!


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 7:05*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
> >Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>
> You haven't tried.

Larry, you are an idiot. This is not an insult, just a statement of
fact.

Wil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>>
>> You haven't tried.
>
>
>QED
>

Oh, it's been demonstrated:

Message-ID: >
Message-ID: >
Message-ID: >

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>>>
>>> You haven't tried.
>>
>>
>>QED
>>
>
> Oh, it's been demonstrated:
>
> Message-ID: >
> Message-ID: >
> Message-ID: >


Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo **** yourself?

Well, did you?


How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?


Bertie

[TheSmokingGnu]

george wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:50 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
>> everywhere! :-)
>
> Whoops ....
> My apologies to all the 'persons' out there for claiming this ******
> to be a part of the human race

Now now, you've only insulted ******s everywhere. New to this, arentcha?

:D

Larry, go take a long roll off a short runway. The OP obviously has
already grasped the depth and scope of his snafu(s), there was and is
absolutely no need to castigate him like a ****ing nun.

Mistakes were made, noted, and will be corrected. The circle of flying
is complete.

TheSmokingGnu

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:38:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>>>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't tried.
>>>
>>>
>>>QED
>>>
>>
>> Oh, it's been demonstrated:
>>
>> Message-ID: >
>> Message-ID: >
>> Message-ID: >
>
>
>Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo **** yourself?
>
>Well, did you?
>
>
>How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?
>
>
>Bertie

Hung on his own Petard.

The defense rests.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:38:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:20:37 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't tried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>QED
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, it's been demonstrated:
>>>
>>> Message-ID: >
>>> Message-ID: >
>>> Message-ID: >
>>
>>
>>Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo **** yourself?
>>
>>Well, did you?
>>
>>
>>How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Hung on his own Petard.
>
> The defense rests.
>
The mighty Betie the Bunyip. Beaten at lst by a fjuktard.

How will I ever live it down?


Bertie

[Al Borowski]

On Jan 27, 8:24 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), wrote
> in
> >:
>
> >And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?
>
> Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
> originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
> identity, you should take steps to conceal it.

There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
up.

Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
worst.

If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.

The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.

Al

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:20:52 -0800 (PST), Al Borowski
> wrote in
>:

>On Jan 27, 8:24 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), wrote
>> in
>> >:
>>
>> >And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?
>>
>> Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
>> originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
>> identity, you should take steps to conceal it.
>
>There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
>partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
>pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
>out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
>But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
>up.
>
>Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
>They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
>knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
>worst.

In the event Mr. Faulkiner's is employed, and his possible employer
may have reason to research Mr. Faulkiner via a Google search, and the
possibility that Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer lacks the ability
or knowledge to correctly evaluate Mr. Faulkiner's passable pilot
deviation, exactly what do you think Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer
might assume?

>If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
>his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.

Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
him. I assure you, that I meant no enmity toward Mr. Faulkiner.

>The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
>man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.
>
>Al
>

I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.

Main Entry:1command
Pronunciation:k*-*mand
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English comanden, from Middle French comander,
from (assumed) Vulgar Latin commandare, alteration of Latin
commendare to commit to one's charge more at COMMEND
Date:14th century

transitive senses
1 : to direct authoritatively : ORDER
2 : to exercise a dominating influence over : have command of: as
a : to have at one's immediate disposal
b : to demand or receive as one's due *commands a high fee*
c : to overlook or dominate from or as if from a strategic
position
d : to have military command of as senior officer
3 obsolete : to order or request to be given
intransitive senses
1 : to have or exercise direct authority : GOVERN
2 : to give orders
3 : to be commander
4 : to dominate as if from an elevated place
–commandable \-*man-d*-b*l\ adjective
synonyms COMMAND, ORDER, BID, ENJOIN, DIRECT, INSTRUCT, CHARGE
mean to issue orders. COMMAND and ORDER imply authority and
usually some degree of formality and impersonality. COMMAND
stresses official exercise of authority *a general commanding
troops*. ORDER may suggest peremptory or arbitrary exercise
*ordered his employees about like slaves*. BID suggests giving
orders peremptorily (as to children or servants) *she bade him be
seated*. ENJOIN implies giving an order or direction
authoritatively and urgently and often with admonition or
solicitude *a sign enjoining patrons to be quiet*. DIRECT and
INSTRUCT both connote expectation of obedience and usually concern
specific points of procedure or method, INSTRUCT sometimes
implying greater explicitness or formality *directed her assistant
to hold all calls* *the judge instructed the jury to ignore the
remark*. CHARGE adds to ENJOIN an implication of imposing as a
duty or responsibility *charged by the President with a secret
mission*.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
> apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.

You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
just as effectively.
--
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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 9:17*pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> > of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
> > apparently. *If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>
> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
> just as effectively.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390


The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
feel we may be at fault. Having an obscured partial name is a lot
different than having your full name come up on a search engine. I
understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
that were constructive. But posting of a name was totally
unnecessary. The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my
mind all day. I realize the magnitude of my mistake. I have scheduled
some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go throught the track log
of the GPS in the plane I rented.

Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
entirely true.

[Matt Whiting]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
>>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
>>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
>>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>>> seems uncalled for.
>>
>> Because Larry is an idiot as anyone who has followed this ng for more
>> than 3 months quickly figures out.
>
> Three months? Are you a slow learner???

Not me, but some seem to have taken a while to figure out Larry.

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>> And you are a idiot!
>
>
> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?

Yes, for that does appear to be the case. I think the posts are running
nearly 100% against you, so who is and is not engaging in rational
discussion?

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>>> And you are a idiot!
>>>
>>> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>>>
>>>
>> Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
>
> Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
> contains a grammatical error.

Actually, it was a typographical error.


> Lacking any rational argument to support it, it is just an immature
> emotional outburst. If someone is able to provide any rational
> justification for Mr. Whiting's contention, then let's hear it.
> Otherwise, perhaps it is you who lack the depth to infer my meaning.

Your posting history in this ng stands alone as ample justification.

[Jules]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
> obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
> him.

When people do, they get hash for that too!!

Larry, you keep peddling.

Thing is everybody, googles everybody.

If this guy finds a lawyer that agrees what you did was actionable, in
outing him. More power to him, I say.

[Jules]

> Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
> obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
> him.

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

Oh sure, it's all his fault????

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 9:59*pm, wrote:
>
> Having an obscured partial name is a lot different
> than having your full name come up on a search engine.

With all due respect, it's not. Even without Larry's post, googling
rfaulkiner immediately turns up your full name; and conversely,
googling your full name (which is what someone investigating you would
do) immediately turns up rfaulkiner--which would be an obvious item
for an investigator to google anyway, given your full name. (I'm not
sure why you think the name is 'obscured'. Google's web-based
newsgroup reader does omit part of the email address until you click
to see the full address, but other newsgroup readers display the full
address to begin with.)

Larry's tactic was unnecessarily rude, but otherwise inconsequential.

Be safe and enjoy your new certificate!

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:59:24 -0800 (PST), wrote
in
>:

>On Jan 26, 9:17*pm, Jay Maynard >
>wrote:
>> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
>> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
>> > of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
>> > apparently. *If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>>
>> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
>> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
>> just as effectively.
>
>
>The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
>new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
>feel we may be at fault.

That would be unfortunate if it were true, however I doubt you are not
able to speak other pilots. But they may realize how obscuring their
identity may be appropriate when they are publicly confessing their
regulation violations now.

>Having an obscured partial name is a lot
>different than having your full name come up on a search engine.

Of course that's not true in your case. In the future you may
consider verifying your assertions before making them.

If your identity was an issue for you, why didn't YOU take steps to
obscure it? I'll reckon you are aware of the value of it now.

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

>I understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
>that were constructive.

You're welcome.

Which bits do you feel were not constructive?

>But posting of a name was totally unnecessary.

I'm not so sure.

Would you have preferred to remain ignorant and continue to post your
(possible) pilot deviations using your true identity, rather than see
how it looked publicly?

Here's another hint. If you fail to instruct the FAA to remove your
name from their publicly accessible records, more than your name will
be accessible to those researching you. But there's no reason to be
paranoid about it, is there? Are you unlisted in the telephone book?

>The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my mind all day.

Excellent. I believe you will recall this experience repeatedly over
the decades, and when you do, you can thank me (and not your CFI
apparently) for impressing it indelibly in your mind.

>I realize the magnitude of my mistake.

Which one? The PD turned out okay, but your failure to command the
flight, as you should have been taught, is far more serious. You will
be working on that for a while. But don't beat yourself over it; it's
common for freshly certificated airmen. Just learn to be as serious
as you can about your flight operations, and always comply with Sec.
91.103:

http://tinyurl.com/2vcweo
Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

You'll notice the FAA used the absolute word 'all' in that regulation.
It can be a pain to be thorough in researching ALL the data pertinent
to EVERY flight, but it's necessary. Not only to comply with
regulations, but to assure yourself that things haven't changed....

I humbly suggest, that you consider making it a personal rule to NEVER
launch without your course-line plotted on a chart; GPS is no
substitute for paper charts, trust me.

>I have scheduled some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go
>throught the track log of the GPS in the plane I rented.

I am impressed. That is a very mature choice of action. Well done.

I know you are worried about the consequences of your PD. Given the
ASRS immunity, that can be a non-issue for you. But your failure to
command is far more important. It would seem that the seeds of
appreciation for the significance of that have been well planted, and
are already bearing fruit.

>Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
>that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
>entirely true.

When you were a child and your mother rapped your knuckles for playing
with matches, did you think she disliked you? Or did you realized she
had your best interest at heart?

Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).

--
There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
luck, and empty bag of experiance - the trick being to fill the
bag of experiance before you empty the bag of luck"
-- Colin Southern

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:59:24 -0800 (PST), wrote
> in
> >:
>
>>On Jan 26, 9:17*pm, Jay Maynard >
>>wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
>>> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming
>>> > command of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to
>>> > do apparently. *If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>>>
>>> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45
>>> to get his attention. You could have done so in a much more
>>> civilized manner and just as effectively.
>>
>>
>>The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
>>new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
>>feel we may be at fault.
>
> That would be unfortunate if it were true, however I doubt you are not
> able to speak other pilots. But they may realize how obscuring their
> identity may be appropriate when they are publicly confessing their
> regulation violations now.
>
>>Having an obscured partial name is a lot
>>different than having your full name come up on a search engine.
>
> Of course that's not true in your case. In the future you may
> consider verifying your assertions before making them.
>
> If your identity was an issue for you, why didn't YOU take steps to
> obscure it? I'll reckon you are aware of the value of it now.
>
> There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
> to avoid the real labor of thinking.
> -- Sir Joshua Reynolds
>
>>I understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the
>>bits that were constructive.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Which bits do you feel were not constructive?
>
>>But posting of a name was totally unnecessary.
>
> I'm not so sure.
>
> Would you have preferred to remain ignorant and continue to post your
> (possible) pilot deviations using your true identity, rather than see
> how it looked publicly?
>
> Here's another hint. If you fail to instruct the FAA to remove your
> name from their publicly accessible records, more than your name will
> be accessible to those researching you. But there's no reason to be
> paranoid about it, is there? Are you unlisted in the telephone book?
>
>>The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my mind all day.
>
> Excellent. I believe you will recall this experience repeatedly over
> the decades, and when you do, you can thank me (and not your CFI
> apparently) for impressing it indelibly in your mind.
>
>>I realize the magnitude of my mistake.
>
> Which one? The PD turned out okay, but your failure to command the
> flight, as you should have been taught, is far more serious. You will
> be working on that for a while. But don't beat yourself over it; it's
> common for freshly certificated airmen. Just learn to be as serious
> as you can about your flight operations, and always comply with Sec.
> 91.103:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vcweo
> Preflight action.
>
> Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
> familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
>
> You'll notice the FAA used the absolute word 'all' in that regulation.
> It can be a pain to be thorough in researching ALL the data pertinent
> to EVERY flight, but it's necessary. Not only to comply with
> regulations, but to assure yourself that things haven't changed....
>
> I humbly suggest, that you consider making it a personal rule to NEVER
> launch without your course-line plotted on a chart; GPS is no
> substitute for paper charts, trust me.
>
>>I have scheduled some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go
>>throught the track log of the GPS in the plane I rented.
>
> I am impressed. That is a very mature choice of action. Well done.
>
> I know you are worried about the consequences of your PD. Given the
> ASRS immunity, that can be a non-issue for you. But your failure to
> command is far more important. It would seem that the seeds of
> appreciation for the significance of that have been well planted, and
> are already bearing fruit.
>
>>Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
>>that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
>>entirely true.
>
> When you were a child and your mother rapped your knuckles for playing
> with matches, did you think she disliked you? Or did you realized she
> had your best interest at heart?
>
> Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
> personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
> impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
> enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
> eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
> competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>

Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
you, Lar....

Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Jan 27, 12:24*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:59:24 -0800 (PST), wrote
> in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 26, 9:17*pm, Jay Maynard >
> >wrote:
> >> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> >> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> >> > of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
> >> > apparently. *If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>
> >> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
> >> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
> >> just as effectively.
>
> >The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
> >new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
> >feel we may be at fault. *
>
> That would be unfortunate if it were true, however I doubt you are not
> able to speak other pilots. *But they may realize how obscuring their
> identity may be appropriate when they are publicly confessing their
> regulation violations now. *
>
> >Having an obscured partial name is a lot
> >different than having your full name come up on a search engine. *
>
> Of course that's not true in your case. *In the future you may
> consider verifying your assertions before making them. *
>
> If your identity was an issue for you, why didn't YOU take steps to
> obscure it? *I'll reckon you are aware of the value of it now. *
>
> * * *There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
> * * *to avoid the real labor of thinking. *
> * * * * * -- Sir Joshua Reynolds
>
> >I understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
> >that were constructive. *
>
> You're welcome. *
>
> Which bits do you feel were not constructive? *
>
> >But posting of a name was totally unnecessary. *
>
> I'm not so sure.
>
> Would you have preferred to remain ignorant and continue to post your
> (possible) pilot deviations using your true identity, rather than see
> how it looked publicly? *
>
> Here's another hint. *If you fail to instruct the FAA to remove your
> name from their publicly accessible records, more than your name will
> be accessible to those researching you. *But there's no reason to be
> paranoid about it, is there? *Are you unlisted in the telephone book?
>
> >The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my mind all day.
>
> Excellent. *I believe you will recall this experience repeatedly over
> the decades, and when you do, you can thank me (and not your CFI
> apparently) for impressing it indelibly in your mind.
>
> >I realize the magnitude of my mistake. *
>
> Which one? *The PD turned out okay, but your failure to command the
> flight, as you should have been taught, is far more serious. *You will
> be working on that for a while. *But don't beat yourself over it; it's
> common for freshly certificated airmen. *Just learn to be as serious
> as you can about your flight operations, and always comply with Sec.
> 91.103:
>
> * *http://tinyurl.com/2vcweo
> * * Preflight action.
>
> * * Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
> * * familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
>
> You'll notice the FAA used the absolute word 'all' in that regulation.
> It can be a pain to be thorough in researching ALL the data pertinent
> to EVERY flight, but it's necessary. *Not only to comply with
> regulations, but to assure yourself that things haven't changed....
>
> I humbly suggest, that you consider making it a personal rule to NEVER
> launch without your course-line plotted on a chart; GPS is no
> substitute for paper charts, trust me.
>
> >I have scheduled some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go
> >throught the track log of the GPS in the plane I rented.
>
> I am impressed. *That is a very mature choice of action. *Well done. *
>
> I know you are worried about the consequences of your PD. *Given the
> ASRS immunity, that can be a non-issue for you. *But your failure to
> command is far more important. *It would seem that the seeds of
> appreciation for the significance of that have been well planted, and
> are already bearing fruit.
>
> >Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
> >that we were somehow united as a group. *I now realize that is not
> >entirely true.
>
> When you were a child and your mother rapped your knuckles for playing
> with matches, did you think she disliked you? *Or did you realized she
> had your best interest at heart?
>
> Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
> personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
> impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. *There are
> enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
> eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
> competent and professional among your peers. *So hang out here in
> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>
> --
> * * There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
> * * luck, and empty bag of experiance - the trick being to fill the
> * * bag of experiance before you empty the bag of luck"
> * * *-- Colin Southern- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Larry,

Not only are you an idiot, you are a complete asshole.

Wil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>So hang out here in
>> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
>> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>>
>
>Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
>you, Lar....

Have no fear, son. You'll think of something constructive to say one
day, maybe. Just keep practicing...You'll figure it out.

I have faith in you; just look at how you chose not to crosspost your
followup to your home planet, alt.usenet.kooks, this time. Even the
sophomoric possess the potential to learn, eh?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>So hang out here in
>>> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
>>> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>>>
>>
>>Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
>>you, Lar....
>
> Have no fear, son. You'll think of something constructive to say one
> day, maybe. Just keep practicing...You'll figure it out.


oh ouch.

>
> I have faith in you; just look at how you chose not to crosspost your
> followup to your home planet, alt.usenet.kooks, this time. Even the
> sophomoric possess the potential to learn, eh?
>

Oh I can crosspost there if you like, Lar.


But they're creampuffs compared to the meowers..


Demonstration?


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

William Hung wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:24 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:59:24 -0800 (PST), wrote
>> in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 9:17 pm, Jay Maynard >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>> I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
>>>>> attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
>>>>> of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
>>>>> apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>>>> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
>>>> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
>>>> just as effectively.
>>> The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
>>> new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
>>> feel we may be at fault.
>> That would be unfortunate if it were true, however I doubt you are not
>> able to speak other pilots. But they may realize how obscuring their
>> identity may be appropriate when they are publicly confessing their
>> regulation violations now.
>>
>>> Having an obscured partial name is a lot
>>> different than having your full name come up on a search engine.
>> Of course that's not true in your case. In the future you may
>> consider verifying your assertions before making them.
>>
>> If your identity was an issue for you, why didn't YOU take steps to
>> obscure it? I'll reckon you are aware of the value of it now.
>>
>> There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
>> to avoid the real labor of thinking.
>> -- Sir Joshua Reynolds
>>
>>> I understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
>>> that were constructive.
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Which bits do you feel were not constructive?
>>
>>> But posting of a name was totally unnecessary.
>> I'm not so sure.
>>
>> Would you have preferred to remain ignorant and continue to post your
>> (possible) pilot deviations using your true identity, rather than see
>> how it looked publicly?
>>
>> Here's another hint. If you fail to instruct the FAA to remove your
>> name from their publicly accessible records, more than your name will
>> be accessible to those researching you. But there's no reason to be
>> paranoid about it, is there? Are you unlisted in the telephone book?
>>
>>> The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my mind all day.
>> Excellent. I believe you will recall this experience repeatedly over
>> the decades, and when you do, you can thank me (and not your CFI
>> apparently) for impressing it indelibly in your mind.
>>
>>> I realize the magnitude of my mistake.
>> Which one? The PD turned out okay, but your failure to command the
>> flight, as you should have been taught, is far more serious. You will
>> be working on that for a while. But don't beat yourself over it; it's
>> common for freshly certificated airmen. Just learn to be as serious
>> as you can about your flight operations, and always comply with Sec.
>> 91.103:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vcweo
>> Preflight action.
>>
>> Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
>> familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
>>
>> You'll notice the FAA used the absolute word 'all' in that regulation.
>> It can be a pain to be thorough in researching ALL the data pertinent
>> to EVERY flight, but it's necessary. Not only to comply with
>> regulations, but to assure yourself that things haven't changed....
>>
>> I humbly suggest, that you consider making it a personal rule to NEVER
>> launch without your course-line plotted on a chart; GPS is no
>> substitute for paper charts, trust me.
>>
>>> I have scheduled some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go
>>> throught the track log of the GPS in the plane I rented.
>> I am impressed. That is a very mature choice of action. Well done.
>>
>> I know you are worried about the consequences of your PD. Given the
>> ASRS immunity, that can be a non-issue for you. But your failure to
>> command is far more important. It would seem that the seeds of
>> appreciation for the significance of that have been well planted, and
>> are already bearing fruit.
>>
>>> Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
>>> that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
>>> entirely true.
>> When you were a child and your mother rapped your knuckles for playing
>> with matches, did you think she disliked you? Or did you realized she
>> had your best interest at heart?
>>
>> Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
>> personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
>> impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
>> enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
>> eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
>> competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
>> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
>> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>>
>> --
>> There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
>> luck, and empty bag of experiance - the trick being to fill the
>> bag of experiance before you empty the bag of luck"
>> -- Colin Southern- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Larry,
>
> Not only are you an idiot, you are a complete asshole.

Now you're insulting assholes everywhere...

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
> personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
> impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
> enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
> eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
> competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).

Well, I've just ignored your drivel for the most part, but I'm weary of
it. Plonk.

Matt

[Phil J]

On Jan 26, 8:59*pm, wrote:

> Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
> that we were somehow united as a group. *I now realize that is not
> entirely true.

All you have to do is read this NG for about two minutes and you will
see that pilots are not united as a group! But it's just like every
other NG out there, so I guess pilots are no different than any other
group of human beings.

In any NG if you write a post describing something stupid you did, you
can expect a certain amount of, let's call it friction, in response.
But don't let it stop you, or anyone else reading this, from posting
your mistakes here. One of the real purposes of this NG is for us to
learn from each other. It takes courage to go into a public forum
like this and confess your mistakes for all the world to see. Not
everyone has the guts to do it. I am glad you did.

Phil

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
> seems uncalled for.

It was very tacky for Larry to do that but it is what can be expected
form Larry.

Keep in mind though you did post with enough info that anyone could have
found your full name.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:38 am, wrote:
>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>> seems uncalled for.
>
> I'm not yet a pilot, but it sounds like you were acting as if you were
> flying IFR -how else could you be thrown off course by the GPS? I've
> not done my night rating work but I've been told that flying VFR at
> night requires constant attention to lights, compass heading(s)/
> bearings and gloomy shadows to know your position. I think the GPS
> should be considered to be only an aid for VFR pilots, not the primary
> navigation tool (which is eyes, brain and chart) and if I am right in
> my student pilot opinion, the autopilot should be slaved to compass
> and position checked by GPS -not dictated by GPS (until you are IFR).
> I would welcome more experienced pilots to comment on this -should a
> VFR pilot slave the autopilot to GPS or compass?
>
> You started a good thread here and it's great that you admit your
> mistake for us to learn from it.
>
> Cheers
>


What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 6:38 am, wrote:
>>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned
for
>>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options
you
>>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form
immediately.
>>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>>> seems uncalled for.
>>
>> I'm not yet a pilot, but it sounds like you were acting as if you
were
>> flying IFR -how else could you be thrown off course by the GPS? I've
>> not done my night rating work but I've been told that flying VFR at
>> night requires constant attention to lights, compass heading(s)/
>> bearings and gloomy shadows to know your position. I think the GPS
>> should be considered to be only an aid for VFR pilots, not the
primary
>> navigation tool (which is eyes, brain and chart) and if I am right in
>> my student pilot opinion, the autopilot should be slaved to compass
>> and position checked by GPS -not dictated by GPS (until you are IFR).
>> I would welcome more experienced pilots to comment on this -should a
>> VFR pilot slave the autopilot to GPS or compass?
>>
>> You started a good thread here and it's great that you admit your
>> mistake for us to learn from it.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
>
> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.


Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
sort of stuff.

Bertie
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
>
>
> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
> essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
> Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
> sort of stuff.
>
> Bertie
>

Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
and use of a VOR was.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
> use of a VOR was.
>

When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13prvb8h2m12219
@news.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>>> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
>>
>>
>> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
>> essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
>> Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
>> sort of stuff.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
> and use of a VOR was.
>

I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone with a
fresh ppl anyway.

How many know the 1/60 rule?


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:23:42 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.

I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights.

Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
route to a safe landing?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13prvb8h2m12219
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>>>> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
>>>
>>> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
>>> essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
>>> Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
>>> sort of stuff.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
>> and use of a VOR was.
>>
>
> I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone with a
> fresh ppl anyway.
>
> How many know the 1/60 rule?
>
>
> Bertie


I didn't say anything about someone with a fresh PPL. The person I was
responding to (a student) was saying that a non-instrument rated pilot
shouldn't be using GPS, IFR... as primary navigation.

I've heard the term 1/60 rule but don't know what it is.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
>> use of a VOR was.
>>
>
> When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
>
>

You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?

The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.

B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings ±15°.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
>

No.


>
> The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.
>

Yes, as does Part 61, but not specifically VOR as you claimed.


>
> B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
> (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
> Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
> and radar services.
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.
> 5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
> appropriate.
> 6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
> 7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
> services.
> 8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
> headings ±15°.
>

VOR does not appear there either. I suggest you read what you quote before
posting it, you might appear less stupid that way.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
> >

> No.


> >
> > The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.
> >

> Yes, as does Part 61, but not specifically VOR as you claimed.


> >
> > B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
> > (ASEL and ASES)
> > REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
> > Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
> > Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> > 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
> > and radar services.
> > 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> > system.
> > 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> > 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> > appropriate.
> > 5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
> > appropriate.
> > 6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
> > 7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
> > services.
> > 8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ?200 feet (60 meters) and
> > headings ?15?.
> >

> VOR does not appear there either. I suggest you read what you quote before
> posting it, you might appear less stupid that way.

VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.

I suggest you read for comprehension rather than doing word searches
on text before posting; you might appear less of an anal asshole that
way.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:44:27 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
>>> use of a VOR was.
>>>
>>
>> When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
>>
>>
>
>You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?

I believe your response to a civil question imminently qualifies you
for the invective you so glibly sling, more than the object of your
scorn.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>

It's not implied at all to an informed reader.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:44:27 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
>>>> use of a VOR was.
>>>>
>>> When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
>>>
>>>
>> You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
>
> I believe your response to a civil question imminently qualifies you
> for the invective you so glibly sling, more than the object of your
> scorn.
>

Larry backing up Steven there's a heck of a team.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>>
>
> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.
>
>


OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
systems these lines are referring to...

2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
> >

> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.

Yeah, sure.

I'm willing to bet every pillow, mattress, and piece of furniture in
your house still has the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on
it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
> systems these lines are referring to...
>
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.
>

It doesn't refer to any specific system. The requirements can be satisfied
with ADF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> I'm willing to bet every pillow, mattress, and piece of furniture in
> your house still has the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on
> it.
>

You're on. Name the amount.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-28, Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
> systems these lines are referring to...
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.

I'm not Steven, but it seems to me that a GPS would qualify.
--
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

[Cary]

On Jan 26, 11:50*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.
>
> ...> Best of luck to you.
> Dudley Henriques

Dudley,
As usual your response is right on. I also agree with you completely
and would like to encourage others to continue posting their errors so
that we can all learn. I have certainly made my share of errors in my
1500 hours, and have posted many of them here. If someone wants to
remain anonymous, they should feel free to do so.

Best,
Cary

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> How many know the 1/60 rule?

I didn't - but then I'm not yet past student pilot. Luckily google yields
this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_in_60_rule

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:44:27 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP
>>>> requirements and use of a VOR was.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
>
> I believe your response to a civil question imminently qualifies you
> for the invective you so glibly sling, more than the object of your
> scorn.
>
>

Mr Netkkkop speaks out again.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yeah, sure.
> >
> > I'm willing to bet every pillow, mattress, and piece of furniture in
> > your house still has the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on
> > it.
> >

> You're on. Name the amount.

Said as he scurries through the house looking for all those tags...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Said as he scurries through the house looking for all those tags...
>

Welcher.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> news:13prvb8h2m12219 @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times
>>>>> that GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR
>>>>> pilots.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really
>>>> pretty essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for
>>>> instance. Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial
>>>> bodies, that sort of stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP
>>> requirements and use of a VOR was.
>>>
>>
>> I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone
>> with a fresh ppl anyway.
>>
>> How many know the 1/60 rule?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I didn't say anything about someone with a fresh PPL. The person I was
> responding to (a student) was saying that a non-instrument rated pilot
> shouldn't be using GPS, IFR... as primary navigation.
>
> I've heard the term 1/60 rule but don't know what it is.
>

Well, what I'm advocating is a bit more nuts and bolts nav sense if
people are going to start dicing with weather, rather than just rely on
GPS, so I think we're on the same page. The one in sixty rule just
means, for example, that every sixty miles you are from a navaid, each
degree is about one mile. So, if you're sailing along roughly abeam a
VOR with no DME, and you know your groundspeed is about 2 miles a minute
and you cover two degrees in about a minute, well, you know that that
VOR is sixty miles away. If you cover four degrees in a minute, you're
thirty miles and so on. It's rule of thumb, but it works well.
Likelyise, if you are dead reckoning on top and there is one quick
visual reference and you know how far it is off your dsired track since
our last known position, you can calculate your drift quite accurately
for your next leg. There's a thousand and one uses for it.

Cool eh?

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:04:29 -0800 (PST), Cary > wrote
in >:

>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.131.11.16

But don't expect GoogleGroups to provide complete anonymity. For
instance, you posted your article from: Department of Veterans
Affairs. I just thought you'd like to know.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> How many know the 1/60 rule?
>
> I didn't - but then I'm not yet past student pilot. Luckily google
> yields this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_in_60_rule
>

It's not widely taught these day, along with a host of other nav tricks
that were common knowledge years ago in pre radio days.
This one is one of the most useful i can think of though. Another
example would be if you are flying along an airway and there's a navaid
roughly abeam you you can figure your groundspeed by counting the time
it takes to cross radials.

One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
particular point of your airplane is form your eye position. To make
this as accurate as possible, you have to start out with standard
position for your eye, i.e, make sure you make the observation from the
same positon and not with your seat slid forward one time and back the
next.
Then measure, using wahtever sort of device is to hand, the point of
your aircraft that would be 5 deg left of the aircraft's centerline. You
could move the airplane around on the ground to do this using a distant
ground refernce point, or you could use a homemade sextant or whatever
way you care to come up with. You can do it on cowl parts, wings, and
tail. The fore and aft ones are most useful, but it's handy to have some
reference on the wings as well. When you know the references, you can
easily calculate your drift by seing whcih refernce line remains steady
with a ground refernce as you fly along. The poiint that remains steady
on your aircraft is indicating your drift. This is especially handy if
you're leaving your last ground ref points behind you like on an
overwater flight. You can get an actual drift by looking behind you as
you head away from land.
A lot of old time long distance flyers would have had lines painted on
various parts for this very purpose, especially on the stab. I think the
Douglas world Cruisers had them, for instance, and a lot of the Benidix
and McPherson racers would have had them.


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:38:59 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>>>
>>
>> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.
>>
>>
>
>
>OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
>systems these lines are referring to...
>
>2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
>system.
>3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
>4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
>appropriate.

GPS? LORAN? ADF?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
>> systems these lines are referring to...
>>
>> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
>> system.
>> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
>> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
>> appropriate.
>>
>
> It doesn't refer to any specific system. The requirements can be satisfied
> with ADF.
>
>


Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I
took my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I took
> my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>

You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:04:29 -0800 (PST), Cary > wrote
> in >:
>
>>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.131.11.16
>
> But don't expect GoogleGroups to provide complete anonymity. For
> instance, you posted your article from: Department of Veterans
> Affairs. I just thought you'd like to know.
>

Netkkkoping ****.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Well, what I'm advocating is a bit more nuts and bolts nav sense if
> people are going to start dicing with weather, rather than just rely on
> GPS, so I think we're on the same page. The one in sixty rule just
> means, for example, that every sixty miles you are from a navaid, each
> degree is about one mile. So, if you're sailing along roughly abeam a
> VOR with no DME, and you know your groundspeed is about 2 miles a minute
> and you cover two degrees in about a minute, well, you know that that
> VOR is sixty miles away. If you cover four degrees in a minute, you're
> thirty miles and so on. It's rule of thumb, but it works well.
> Likelyise, if you are dead reckoning on top and there is one quick
> visual reference and you know how far it is off your dsired track since
> our last known position, you can calculate your drift quite accurately
> for your next leg. There's a thousand and one uses for it.
>
> Cool eh?
>
> Bertie
>


Yes it is cool and I'm pretty sure somebody taught it to me at some
point. It's back up in the front of the memory system now so, Thanks.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:38:59 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>>>>
>>> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
>> systems these lines are referring to...
>>
>> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
>> system.
>> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
>> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
>> appropriate.
>
> GPS? LORAN? ADF?

And........?

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
>How many know the 1/60 rule?
>
>Bertie

Looks like the worthwile posts to crap ratio.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:50:25 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:38:59 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>>>>>
>>>> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
>>> systems these lines are referring to...
>>>
>>> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
>>> system.
>>> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
>>> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> GPS? LORAN? ADF?
>
>And........?

Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7ee616c22803b@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>>How many know the 1/60 rule?
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Looks like the worthwile posts to crap ratio.
>



Could be worse....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Well, what I'm advocating is a bit more nuts and bolts nav sense if
>> people are going to start dicing with weather, rather than just rely
>> on GPS, so I think we're on the same page. The one in sixty rule just
>> means, for example, that every sixty miles you are from a navaid,
>> each degree is about one mile. So, if you're sailing along roughly
>> abeam a VOR with no DME, and you know your groundspeed is about 2
>> miles a minute and you cover two degrees in about a minute, well, you
>> know that that VOR is sixty miles away. If you cover four degrees in
>> a minute, you're thirty miles and so on. It's rule of thumb, but it
>> works well. Likelyise, if you are dead reckoning on top and there is
>> one quick visual reference and you know how far it is off your dsired
>> track since our last known position, you can calculate your drift
>> quite accurately for your next leg. There's a thousand and one uses
>> for it.
>>
>> Cool eh?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> Yes it is cool and I'm pretty sure somebody taught it to me at some
> point. It's back up in the front of the memory system now so, Thanks.
>

I still use it al the time, eve with teh pink string in front of me.


Bertie

[george]

On Jan 29, 5:25 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13prvb8h2m12219
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
> >>> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
>
> >> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
> >> essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
> >> Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
> >> sort of stuff.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
> > and use of a VOR was.
>
> I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone with a
> fresh ppl anyway.
>
> How many know the 1/60 rule?
>
Me. But I'm old :-)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 11:21*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in ...
>
> > Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
> > use of a VOR was.
>
> When did you last check? *"VOR" does not appear in Part 61.

The PP written exam expects you to know about VORs though.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I took
>> my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>>
>
> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>
>


It was for me.

But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have
understood that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that
basically wrote that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any
electronic navigation system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure
you knew this as well and just like starting arguments.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 2:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
> particular point of your airplane is form your eye position.

Another is that the tip of your thumb at arm's length subtends four
degrees. (Both portable and hard to lose.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Jan 29, 5:25 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> news:13prvb8h2m12219 @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times
>> >>> that GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for
>> >>> VFR pilots.
>>
>> >> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really
>> >> pretty essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for
>> >> instance. Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and
>> >> celestial bodies, that sort of stuff.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP
>> > requirements and use of a VOR was.
>>
>> I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone
>> with a fresh ppl anyway.
>>
>> How many know the 1/60 rule?
>>
> Me. But I'm old :-)
>
>

You probably also know what a four way range is and how to time oil drips
to see if it;s too thinck to start up!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:7ca97382-7571-4065-a244-9cb7dff15e22
@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 28, 2:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
>> particular point of your airplane is form your eye position.
>
> Another is that the tip of your thumb at arm's length subtends four
> degrees. (Both portable and hard to lose.)
>

You must have very fat thumbs!


Hand extended, thumb and pinky stretched to max, twenty degrees. Width
of fist, ten, and thumb about 2 to 2.5 . I haven't flown too many airplanes
you can get your arm striaght out in though!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 3:40*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:7ca97382-7571-4065-a244-9cb7dff15e22
> @e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
> >> particular point of your airplane is form your eye position.
>
> > Another is that the tip of your thumb at arm's length subtends four
> > degrees. (Both portable and hard to lose.)
>
> You must have very fat thumbs!
>
> Hand extended, thumb and pinky stretched to max, twenty degrees. Width
> of fist, ten, and thumb about 2 to 2.5 . I haven't flown too many airplanes
> you can get your arm striaght out in though!

Sorry, I meant length, not width (distance from last joint to end).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 28, 3:40*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:7ca97382-7571-4065-a244-9cb7dff15e22
>
>> @e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jan 28, 2:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
>> >> particular point of your airplane is form your eye position.
>>
>> > Another is that the tip of your thumb at arm's length subtends four
>> > degrees. (Both portable and hard to lose.)
>>
>> You must have very fat thumbs!
>>
>> Hand extended, thumb and pinky stretched to max, twenty degrees.
>> Width of fist, ten, and thumb about 2 to 2.5 . I haven't flown too
>> many airplane
> s
>> you can get your arm striaght out in though!
>
> Sorry, I meant length, not width (distance from last joint to end).
>

Ah, OK, that makes sense.
New one on me. Mine is pretty long though! I'm looking at about 7 degrees!
Really!

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mine is pretty long though!

Sure it is.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>> seems uncalled for.
>
>
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.
>
> If some pilot out here feels after reading that post that they can't
> report these things in good faith, someone may actually be killed down the
> line because of what that poster did.
> I can't condemn that kind of response enough. When new pilots try and do
> things right after making an in-flight error, the very least the community
> can do is to back that pilot's behavior to the fullest.
> I sincerely hope that you realize you have the backing of the vast
> majority of pilots here.
> Go ahead and file the report, forget what this single poster did, and
> learn from the error.
> I have no doubt whatsoever that a new pilot who, as you have done by
> asking for advice on a matter like this, will gain from the experience and
> be a better pilot in the future. By taking the action you have, you have
> made flying safer for all of us, and I commend what you are doing.
>
> Best of luck to you.
> Dudley Henriques
>

Well said, and I concur.

Al G CFIAMI

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13psik7avkt6p16
@news.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mine is pretty long though!
>
> Sure it is.
>

Well, relatively.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote

> You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
>
Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if the
plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR reciever in
it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a different plane to
take the test in?

I never had seen that question asked or answered around here before.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>
>I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
>on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights.
>
>Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
>course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
>failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
>not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
>held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
>route to a safe landing?

I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.

Ron Lee
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:32:56 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>>
>>I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
>>on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights.
>>
>>Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
>>course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
>>failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
>>not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
>>held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
>>route to a safe landing?
>
>I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.
>
>Ron Lee
>>
I would say that a portable GPS qualifies as hand held electronics.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:32:56 GMT, (Ron Lee)
> wrote in >:
>
>>>
>>>I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
>>>on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights.
>>>
>>>Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
>>>course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
>>>failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
>>>not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
>>>held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
>>>route to a safe landing?
>>
>>I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.
>>
>>Ron Lee
>>>
> I would say that a portable GPS qualifies as hand held electronics.
>
>

Of course you would.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 29, 9:30*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I took
> >> my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>
> > You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. *It's not.
>
> It was for me.
>
> But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have
> understood that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that
> basically wrote that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any
> electronic navigation system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure
> you knew this as well and just like starting arguments.

Hi 601,

So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
training??) Do you check your GPS by your visual Nav (i.e. GPS is
your primary system and visual your backup)? Using a map and brain is
a good system and not subject to any of the millions of failure modes
possible in the electronics of GPS. Now IFR is another game entirely
but if your eyes are outside the cockpit how do you use GPS ;-)

Cheers

[John[_13_]]

GPS should be your primary means of navigation. It is the most accurate
means of navigation available. As for the inside the cockpit vs. outside
the cockpit question, you don't stare at the GPS any more then you stare at
the airspeed indicator,vsi or compass. You need to back up the GPS work
with the chart and keeping a idea of where you are but use the best tool for
the job and GPS is that. You spend so much time learning it because it's
hard and requires a great deal of practice to develop skills at it. Even
when you are using ded reckoning as your primary means of navigation you are
using other instruments such as the whiskey compass, airspeed indicator and
clock to judge your location.

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 9:30 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I
> >> took
> >> my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>
> > You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>
> It was for me.
>
> But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have
> understood that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that
> basically wrote that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any
> electronic navigation system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure
> you knew this as well and just like starting arguments.

Hi 601,

So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
training??) Do you check your GPS by your visual Nav (i.e. GPS is
your primary system and visual your backup)? Using a map and brain is
a good system and not subject to any of the millions of failure modes
possible in the electronics of GPS. Now IFR is another game entirely
but if your eyes are outside the cockpit how do you use GPS ;-)

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>
> It was for me.
>

No it wasn't.


>
> But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have understood
> that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that basically wrote
> that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any electronic navigation
> system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure you knew this as well and
> just like starting arguments.
>

What you're sure of is incorrect.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"John" > wrote in
news:mhEnj.5472$z_6.1509@trnddc06:

> GPS should be your primary means of navigation.


Nope.



It is the most
> accurate means of navigation available. As for the inside the cockpit
> vs. outside the cockpit question, you don't stare at the GPS any more
> then you stare at the airspeed indicator,vsi or compass.


Yes you do.

>


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:

> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if the
> plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR reciever in
> it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a different plane to
> take the test in?
>
> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here before.


I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about
showing the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the
requirements could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR, GPS,
Loran. I have not a clue as to how you would do it in say a Cub that
didn't have any.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

> Hi 601,
>
> So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
> (why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
> training??) Do you check your GPS by your visual Nav (i.e. GPS is
> your primary system and visual your backup)? Using a map and brain is
> a good system and not subject to any of the millions of failure modes
> possible in the electronics of GPS. Now IFR is another game entirely
> but if your eyes are outside the cockpit how do you use GPS ;-)
>
> Cheers
>

I'm not saying anything of the sort but I'm also saying that there are
times in VFR flight where they may have to be.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "John" > wrote in
> news:mhEnj.5472$z_6.1509@trnddc06:
>
>> GPS should be your primary means of navigation.
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
>
> It is the most
>> accurate means of navigation available. As for the inside the cockpit
>> vs. outside the cockpit question, you don't stare at the GPS any more
>> then you stare at the airspeed indicator,vsi or compass.
>
>
> Yes you do.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Bull$hit Bertie. If you are Bertie.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>> It was for me.
>>
>
> No it wasn't.

Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took
my PPL checkride in.


>
>
>> But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have understood
>> that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that basically wrote
>> that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any electronic navigation
>> system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure you knew this as well and
>> just like starting arguments.
>>
>
> What you're sure of is incorrect.
>
>


So you just jumped into the thread without reading the previous and
quoted posts and acted like a dick. While I think you are lying it
doesn't really surprise me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13pufkhth41bt33
@news.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "John" > wrote in
>> news:mhEnj.5472$z_6.1509@trnddc06:
>>
>>> GPS should be your primary means of navigation.
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is the most
>>> accurate means of navigation available. As for the inside the cockpit
>>> vs. outside the cockpit question, you don't stare at the GPS any more
>>> then you stare at the airspeed indicator,vsi or compass.
>>
>>
>> Yes you do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bull$hit Bertie. If you are Bertie.
>

It's acccurate, but it should be an overlay. I'm getting to see a lot of
pro pilots who overuse that crap. They have no idea where they are. They're
not running pictures in their heads...They're buried in the boxes.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was for me.
>>>
>>
>> No it wasn't.
>>
>
> Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took my
> PPL checkride in.
>

No it wasn't. The PP requirements are not altered by the equipment in the
aircraft used for the checkride.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if the
>> plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR reciever in
>> it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a different plane to
>> take the test in?
>>
>> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here before.
>
>
> I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about showing
> the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the requirements
> could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR, GPS, Loran. I have not
> a clue as to how you would do it in say a Cub that didn't have any.

I fly with a student in a C-170B, that has an ADF and a GPS only. He
needs to show that he can track a bearing based on electronic navigation. No
VOR, no Problem.

Al G

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
>>>>>
>>>> It was for me.
>>>>
>>> No it wasn't.
>>>
>> Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took my
>> PPL checkride in.
>>
>
> No it wasn't. The PP requirements are not altered by the equipment in the
> aircraft used for the checkride.
>
>

Your sound more like MX every time you touch your keyboard.

Let's try something.

A. Is there a requirement in the PP standard to show use of a electronic
navigation system?
If Yes go to B.
If No you're an idiot I already posted the requirement.

B. If VOR is the only electronic navigation system in the plane how will
one be tested on an ADF, GPS or anything else?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Al G wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if the
>>> plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR reciever in
>>> it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a different plane to
>>> take the test in?
>>>
>>> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here before.
>>
>> I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about showing
>> the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the requirements
>> could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR, GPS, Loran. I have not
>> a clue as to how you would do it in say a Cub that didn't have any.
>
> I fly with a student in a C-170B, that has an ADF and a GPS only. He
> needs to show that he can track a bearing based on electronic navigation. No
> VOR, no Problem.
>
> Al G
>
>

That's the question though Al. What if that C-170B had neither an ADF or
a GPS.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Al G wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if
>>>> the plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR
>>>> reciever in it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a
>>>> different plane to take the test in?
>>>>
>>>> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here
>>>> before.
>>>
>>> I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about
>>> showing the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the
>>> requirements could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR, GPS,
>>> Loran. I have not a clue as to how you would do it in say a Cub that
>>> didn't have any.
>>
>> I fly with a student in a C-170B, that has an ADF and a GPS only.
>> He
>> needs to show that he can track a bearing based on electronic
>> navigation. No VOR, no Problem.
>>
>> Al G
>>
>>
>
> That's the question though Al. What if that C-170B had neither an ADF
> or a GPS.
>

I used to teach in J-3s and we had to check the students out in a Cesna
170 or a 150 before sending them off for their check rides so they could
do a little hood time, night time and radio time. they did them in one
of those two airplanes as well.


Bertie

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Al G wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what if
>>>>> the plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a VOR
>>>>> reciever in it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to find a
>>>>> different plane to take the test in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here
>>>>> before.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about
>>>> showing the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the
>>>> requirements could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR, GPS,
>>>> Loran. I have not a clue as to how you would do it in say a Cub that
>>>> didn't have any.
>>>
>>> I fly with a student in a C-170B, that has an ADF and a GPS only.
>>> He
>>> needs to show that he can track a bearing based on electronic
>>> navigation. No VOR, no Problem.
>>>
>>> Al G
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's the question though Al. What if that C-170B had neither an ADF
>> or a GPS.
>>
>
> I used to teach in J-3s and we had to check the students out in a Cesna
> 170 or a 150 before sending them off for their check rides so they could
> do a little hood time, night time and radio time. they did them in one
> of those two airplanes as well.
>
>
> Bertie

The practical test standards require that you show navigation by
electronic aids.
You would have to use an aircraft that had one, bring one along, or install
it. You could probably rent an aircraft for that part of the checkride only,
but again, you would have to be legal in it.

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Al G wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I would disagree with what you said above, <g> but what
>>>>>> if the plane the pilot wants to take the test in does not have a
>>>>>> VOR reciever in it? Can that plane be used, or do you have to
>>>>>> find a different plane to take the test in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never had seen that question asked or answered around here
>>>>>> before.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the practical test standard has the part in it about
>>>>> showing the skills to use electronic navigation. While any of the
>>>>> requirements could be met with any number of systems, ADF, VOR,
>>>>> GPS, Loran. I have not a clue as to how you would do it in say a
>>>>> Cub that didn't have any.
>>>>
>>>> I fly with a student in a C-170B, that has an ADF and a GPS
>>>> only. He
>>>> needs to show that he can track a bearing based on electronic
>>>> navigation. No VOR, no Problem.
>>>>
>>>> Al G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the question though Al. What if that C-170B had neither an
>>> ADF or a GPS.
>>>
>>
>> I used to teach in J-3s and we had to check the students out in a
>> Cesna 170 or a 150 before sending them off for their check rides so
>> they could do a little hood time, night time and radio time. they did
>> them in one of those two airplanes as well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The practical test standards require that you show navigation by
> electronic aids.
> You would have to use an aircraft that had one, bring one along, or
> install it. You could probably rent an aircraft for that part of the
> checkride only, but again, you would have to be legal in it.


Mmm, exactly.

Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

> wrote in message news:7a77578a-6b19-4e75-8650-

>I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
>mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
>aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
>prepared from now on when I fly.

Thanks for sucking it up and posting here so others can learn from it. I,
as a student CFI, learned something else to teach new pilots.

GPS is one of those things that seems almost to good to be true. It's also
not something that most PPLs seem to get a lot of training on, which,
hopefully, is changing right now.

I did the GPS for IFR and GPS for VFR online AOPA courses and learned a
bunch, but it never tells you not to rely solely on the instrument.

I doubt the FAA will give you much grief.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

>> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>>
> It's not implied at all to an informed reader.

Try to pass a PPL written, oral or practical without understanding how to
use a VOR.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...

>> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I
>> took my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>>
>
> You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.

It's on the written exam. You won't make it as a Private Pilot if you can't
even pass the written exam.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
news:2864057a-bfbf-496a-9b63-

>So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
>(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
>training??)

Depends on the flight. You need to be able to do whatever is required, and
then you can make your choices.

Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night and
if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip or
another isn't going to work.

Also, if you talk to NW Pilot here, who is in the (lucky f'in) business of
ferrying flights across vast expanses of water, he'll probably tell you that
there are times when visual navigation won't work.

Personally, I navigate by VOR/DME, but I use GPS as a sanity check. A quick
glimpse at the display is worth long minutes with a sectional and E6B while
you're trying to fly the airplane in, say, turbulence. Whenever I use the
GPS, though, I check outside for quick visual cues, or I cross-reference
with the Nav radios as a sort of reverse-sanity check. The important thing
is that pilot, VOR and GPS all agree on where you're at.

(In the Pacific Northwest, if you can see the mountains it's difficult to
get lost.)


-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message

> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.

But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're not
going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.

(What we need is a DE in here!)

-c

[Jim Stewart]

gatt wrote:
> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>
>> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
>> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.
>
> But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're not
> going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.

I got $20 that says you can pass your
Light Sport checkride without knowing
what a VOR is...

But then, I don't think that's what you
meant.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 30, 3:55*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > Hi 601,
>
> > So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
> > (why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
> > training??) *Do you check your GPS by your visual Nav (i.e. GPS is
> > your primary system and visual your backup)? Using a map and brain is
> > a good system and not subject to any of the millions of failure modes
> > possible in the electronics of GPS. Now IFR is another game entirely
> > but if your eyes are outside the cockpit how do you use GPS ;-)
>
> > Cheers
>
> I'm not saying anything of the sort but I'm also saying that there are
> times in VFR flight where they may have to be.

Sorry I must have misunderstood your saying:
"I was countering the argument of a student pilot that basically
wrote
that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any electronic
navigation
system as primary navigation."

I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... :-o
That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...

Cheers

Cheers

SSR without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 30, 7:52*am, "gatt" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> news:2864057a-bfbf-496a-9b63-
>
> >So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
> >(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
> >training??)
>
> Depends on the flight. *You need to be able to do whatever is required, and
> then you can make your choices.
>
> Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
> For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night and
> if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip or
> another isn't going to work.
>

Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
and in that case it would be a chart for VFR (and that is the main
point I am asking for confirmation of). Now if there are no ground
references that primary tool won't work so you then use your secondary
tools...

> Also, if you talk to NW Pilot here, who is in the (lucky f'in) business of
> ferrying flights across vast expanses of water, he'll probably tell you that
> there are times when visual navigation won't work.

Yep, no ground reference just like being above cloud...

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
>>> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.
>>
>> But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're
>> not going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.
>
> I got $20 that says you can pass your
> Light Sport checkride without knowing
> what a VOR is...
>
> But then, I don't think that's what you
> meant.
>

And I'll bet you can pass a driving test in all states in the country
without knowing how to use a VOR but so what?

For that matter when I took the check ride for my PP-H RC I wasn't
checked on any navigation systems at all.

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 29, 3:32*pm, (Ron Lee) wrote:
> >I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
> >on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights. *
>
> >Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
> >course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
> >failure. *Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
> >not possible to estimate bearings from them. *Barring the use of hand
> >held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
> >route to a safe landing?
>
> I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.
>
I think the answer is to call ATC but I think one should not be in a
position of not having any idea what ground level is where you are
(i.e. you have no references to a VFR chart).

Cheers

[gatt[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>>>>And you are a idiot!

>>Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
>
> Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
> contains a grammatical error.

Well, it definately contains a grammatical error.

-c

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>>>>Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
>>>>course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
>>>>failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
>>>>not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
>>>>held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
>>>>route to a safe landing?
>>>
>>>I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.
>>>
>>>Ron Lee
>>>>
>> I would say that a portable GPS qualifies as hand held electronics.
>>

>Of course you would.

>
>Bertie

Actually he is right. I missed the "portable" disclaimer. But it is
a fact that I have a handheld GPS recording my position plus I use
flight following so getting advice on the best course to get on the
ground is not a problem. Just admit the need for assistance and
resolve the problem.

Ron Lee

[gatt[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> of his flights in the future,

Hey all. Are we the FAA now? Is that our job out here? To post somebody's
full name if they came out here to mention a mistake they made and to ask
for advice? Is that what CFIs do to pilots after, say, a BFR? Tell
everybody the pilot's name because it's effective in "grabbing the pilot's
attention"? Seems a little vigilante to me.

What's the next person going to do if they know that if they post their
question to the internet, somebody's
likely to take it upon himself as his FAA-given right to print that person's
name on the internet?

I think plenty of pilots out here helped him learn from his mistake without
jeopardizing his privacy or reputation in a constructive and educational
manner. Maybe next time he simply won't post anything, and nobody will
learn anything at all.

I think it's a bad scenario all around. This thread should end on a
positive note instead of descending into namecalling and discouragement of
other pilots who might want to share their experiences in semi-confidence.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

(Ron Lee) wrote in news:479f82ac.1623656
@news.pcisys.net:

>>>>>Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
>>>>>course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
>>>>>failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
>>>>>not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
>>>>>held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
>>>>>route to a safe landing?
>>>>
>>>>I pull out my portable GPS and determine my best option.
>>>>
>>>>Ron Lee
>>>>>
>>> I would say that a portable GPS qualifies as hand held electronics.
>>>
>
>>Of course you would.
>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Actually he is right. I missed the "portable" disclaimer. But it is
> a fact that I have a handheld GPS recording my position plus I use
> flight following so getting advice on the best course to get on the
> ground is not a problem. Just admit the need for assistance and
> resolve the problem.

I was having a go at Larry's fetish for sticking things in legal
pidgeonholes, !

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

> I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
> require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
> are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
> reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
> with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
> course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... :-o
> That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
> known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
> for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
> and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
> have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
> do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
> it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheers
>
> SSR without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...
>

You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
since windshields.

As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
you how mine went.

Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
engine just failed."

F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
during flight solely by reference to instruments.
2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
guidance.
4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.

[Jim Logajan]

"gatt" > wrote:
> This thread should end on a
> positive note instead of descending into namecalling and
> discouragement of other pilots who might want to share their
> experiences in semi-confidence.

I can no more end this thread than I can turn back the tide. But I will say
that IMHO nothing the OP has so far posted to this newsgroup can possibly
get him into trouble with the FAA or other authorities. I believe there is
the small matter of evidence of a transgression. As I understand it, posts
and such admissions do not count as evidence per se. And even he doesn't
know if he has evidence against himself! Even if he wanted to turn himself
in and act as a witness against himself, it seems like he'd have to submit
a bunch of information to the authorities who would then have to cross-
check with any relevant radar records to even determine if a violation of
regs happened.

I hope the above is considered a "positive note".

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:54:54 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>
>> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
>> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.
>
>But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're not
>going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.
>
>(What we need is a DE in here!)

And you are likely right. The original assertion was that VOR is in
part 61 and required for the checkride, it is not - an airborne
navigation device is. Just because the VOR is the most common and
most likely to be chosen by the DE from the various options of box the
language of the regulation provides for doesn't change that the
assertion that VOR is specifically enumerated in the PP checkride is
incorrect. You could take a checkride in an airplane with an inop VOR
that has one of the available alternatives.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:54:54 -0800, "gatt" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Clark" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
>>> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.
>> But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're not
>> going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.
>>
>> (What we need is a DE in here!)
>
> And you are likely right. The original assertion was that VOR is in
> part 61 and required for the checkride, it is not - an airborne
> navigation device is. Just because the VOR is the most common and
> most likely to be chosen by the DE from the various options of box the
> language of the regulation provides for doesn't change that the
> assertion that VOR is specifically enumerated in the PP checkride is
> incorrect. You could take a checkride in an airplane with an inop VOR
> that has one of the available alternatives.


Actually the original assertion was NOT that a VOR is required I listed
a whole bunch of devices that could apply. It was is a quick reply to
Bertie that only VOR was mentioned.

And even my original assertion was in reply to a student pilot that
stated everyone but instrument rated pilots should only be using charts
as primary navigation.

God I love USENET.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message

>>> Of course VOR. I was agreeing that there are multiple choices of
>>> radio style thing that can satisfy that section of the PTS.
>>
>> But, if the examiner finds out you don't know how to use a VOR, you're
>> not going to pass your checkride. I'd bet money on it.
>
> I got $20 that says you can pass your Light Sport checkride without
> knowing
> what a VOR is...
>
> But then, I don't think that's what you meant.

Correct. Otherwise, excellent point.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message

> You could take a checkride in an airplane with an inop VOR
> that has one of the available alternatives.

I imagine that's true, but you're still not going to get past the written
and probably the oral without knowing how to use a VOR.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
news:3605c0f3-af3f-4b88-a004-

>> Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
>> For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night
>> and
>> if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip
>> or
>> another isn't going to work.

>Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
>and in that case it would be a chart for VFR

I can't think of an instance where that's not true. The (current)
sectional is authoritative for VFR flights compared against GPS or whatever
else you're using.


-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your sound more like MX every time you touch your keyboard.
>
> Let's try something.
>
> A. Is there a requirement in the PP standard to show use of a electronic
> navigation system?
>

Yes.


>
> If Yes go to B.
> If No you're an idiot I already posted the requirement.
>
> B. If VOR is the only electronic navigation system in the plane how will
> one be tested on an ADF, GPS or anything else?
>

They won't be tested on anything else.

Has this little exercise helped you to understand that use of a VOR is not
in the PP requirements, and that the PP requirements are not altered by the
equipment in the
aircraft used for the checkride?

If "No", you're an idiot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Try to pass a PPL written, oral or practical without understanding how to
> use a VOR.
>

That's not the issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's on the written exam. You won't make it as a Private Pilot if you
> can't even pass the written exam.
>

Well, unless more than 30% of the test is on VOR the written can be passed
without knowing anything about VOR.

But that's not the issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually the original assertion was NOT that a VOR is required I listed a
> whole bunch of devices that could apply. It was is a quick reply to Bertie
> that only VOR was mentioned.
>
> And even my original assertion was in reply to a student pilot that stated
> everyone but instrument rated pilots should only be using charts as
> primary navigation.
>

On 1/28/2008 "Gig 601XL Builder" asserted:

"Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
use of a VOR was."


>
> God I love USENET.
>

That's an odd thing for you to say.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:

> On the other hand, it's of no practical consequence. Anyone looking at
> the email address would guess that the poster's name is R. Faulkiner,
> and the FAA online database--which is presumably where Larry looked up
> his information--lists only two such pilots, the other of whom has a
> commercial certificate. But the FAA doesn't mine r.a.p. in search of
> violations, and filing an ASRS form will provide protection in any
> event.

Unfortunately, human nature will many times dictate an impression that
determines reaction to something seen without the benefit of a detailed
search for substantiating data.
It would be quite common for a student pilot for example, to simply read
through a post like that, see the reaction from others to the admission
of an error, and even more importantly, envision a punitive action as
the result of admitting an error like this. The result of that could
easily be an unconscious or even a conscious decision not to subject
themselves to possible investigation or penalty down the line, thus
denying both themselves and others any benefit from learning.
It's just not necessary to cause, or even take the chance for causing
someone new to flying to be afraid of reporting something and learning
something from a mistake.
--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 30, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
> > require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
> > are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
> > reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
> > with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
> > course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... * :-o
> > That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
> > known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
> > for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
> > and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
> > have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
> > do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
> > it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Cheers
>
> > SSR *without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...
>
> You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
> don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
> up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
> reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
> difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
> have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
> since windshields.
>
> As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
> you how mine went.
>
> Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
> around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
> away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
> while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
> the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
> reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
> ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
> engine just failed."
>
> F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
> SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
> (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
> navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
> during flight solely by reference to instruments.
> 2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
> 3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
> guidance.
> 4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
> 5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
> maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.

Interesting. In our PPL there is no VOR requirement as far as I know.
It could be that there are few stations to tune into anyway... Sounds
like you were lucky to have your waypoint on a direct radial tho. But
did you actually track your position on the chart by visual reference
as you flew? if you did, would I be correct to say the map was (should
have been) your primary tool? I see your heading requirement is easier
than ours -ours is 5 degrees and within 100' and 5 knots. Could that
be because we have to fly DR and maps more often?

Cheers

Cheers

may be -maybe that's because you don't have such streict

Cheers

Cheers

there are few s

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 30, 1:04*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> news:3605c0f3-af3f-4b88-a004-
>
> >> Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool..
> >> For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night
> >> and
> >> if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip
> >> or
> >> another isn't going to work.
> >Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
> >and in that case it would be a chart for VFR
>
> I can't think of an instance where that's not true. * *The (current)
> sectional is authoritative for VFR flights compared against GPS or whatever
> else you're using.
>
> -c

Thankyou for answering my question. I guess I was right in my ideas.
Tha's one down for the practical test!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Jan 30, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
> > require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
> > are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
> > reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
> > with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
> > course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... * :-o
> > That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
> > known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
> > for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
> > and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
> > have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
> > do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
> > it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...
>
> > Cheers
>
> > Cheers
>
> > SSR *without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...
>
> You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
> don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
> up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
> reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
> difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
> have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
> since windshields.
>
> As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
> you how mine went.
>
> Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
> around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
> away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
> while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
> the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
> reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
> ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
> engine just failed."
>
> F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
> SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
> (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
> navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
> during flight solely by reference to instruments.
> 2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
> 3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
> guidance.
> 4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
> 5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
> maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.

Interesting. In our PPL there is no VOR requirement as far as I know.
It could be that there are few stations to tune into anyway... Sounds
like you were lucky to have your waypoint on a direct radial tho. But
did you actually track your position on the chart by visual reference
as you flew? if you did, would I be correct to say the map was
(should
have been) your primary tool? I see your heading requirement is
easier
than ours -ours is 5 degrees and within 100' and 5 knots. Could that
be because I will have to fly DR and use visual reference/maps more
often?

I'd like to suggest another factor why a chart visual should be
considered primary for VFR. If you know where you are on the map it's
really quick to give a reference for say a mayday. e.g. 5m nne
townsville rather than have to check the scale etc. on the GPS
display?

Cheers

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Actually the original assertion was NOT that a VOR is required I
>> listed a whole bunch of devices that could apply. It was is a quick
>> reply to Bertie that only VOR was mentioned.
>>
>> And even my original assertion was in reply to a student pilot that
>> stated everyone but instrument rated pilots should only be using
>> charts as primary navigation.
>>
>
> On 1/28/2008 "Gig 601XL Builder" asserted:
>
> "Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP
> requirements and use of a VOR was."
>
>
>>
>> God I love USENET.
>>
>
> That's an odd thing for you to say.
>
>
>

Why, you hate it?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Your sound more like MX every time you touch your keyboard.
>>
>> Let's try something.
>>
>> A. Is there a requirement in the PP standard to show use of a
>> electronic navigation system?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> If Yes go to B.
>> If No you're an idiot I already posted the requirement.
>>
>> B. If VOR is the only electronic navigation system in the plane how
>> will one be tested on an ADF, GPS or anything else?
>>
>
> They won't be tested on anything else.
>
> Has this little exercise helped you to understand that use of a VOR is
> not in the PP requirements, and that the PP requirements are not
> altered by the equipment in the
> aircraft used for the checkride?
>
> If "No", you're an idiot.
>
>

Actually, the examiner isn't some automaton who sits there checking
boxes. (well there're probably one or two who do)
If he gets into an airplane with a candidate who can't operate the ****
on board and he imagines this guy putting around like a cow on crack,
long fingering the day he might learn to use the equipment installed,
he's going to fail him on general princple.
He won't say that, of course....



Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually the original assertion was NOT that a VOR is required I listed a
>> whole bunch of devices that could apply. It was is a quick reply to Bertie
>> that only VOR was mentioned.
>>
>> And even my original assertion was in reply to a student pilot that stated
>> everyone but instrument rated pilots should only be using charts as
>> primary navigation.
>>
>
> On 1/28/2008 "Gig 601XL Builder" asserted:
>
> "Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
> use of a VOR was."
>

And that was the quick reply to Bertie that I mentioned

>
>> God I love USENET.
>>
>
> That's an odd thing for you to say.
>
>

Yes, with guys like you on USENET it is.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:19 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
>>> require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
>>> are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
>>> reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
>>> with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
>>> course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... :-o
>>> That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
>>> known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
>>> for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
>>> and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
>>> have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
>>> do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
>>> it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...
>>> Cheers
>>> Cheers
>>> SSR without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...
>> You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
>> don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
>> up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
>> reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
>> difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
>> have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
>> since windshields.
>>
>> As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
>> you how mine went.
>>
>> Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
>> around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
>> away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
>> while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
>> the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
>> reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
>> ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
>> engine just failed."
>>
>> F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
>> SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
>> (ASEL and ASES)
>> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
>> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
>> navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
>> during flight solely by reference to instruments.
>> 2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
>> 3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
>> guidance.
>> 4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
>> 5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
>> maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.
>
> Interesting. In our PPL there is no VOR requirement as far as I know.
> It could be that there are few stations to tune into anyway... Sounds
> like you were lucky to have your waypoint on a direct radial tho. But
> did you actually track your position on the chart by visual reference
> as you flew? if you did, would I be correct to say the map was (should
> have been) your primary tool? I see your heading requirement is easier
> than ours -ours is 5 degrees and within 100' and 5 knots. Could that
> be because we have to fly DR and maps more often?
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheers
>
> may be -maybe that's because you don't have such streict
>
> Cheers
>
> Cheers
>
> there are few s


What a minute. We've spent all this time discussing FAA regs and they
have been quoted many times during this thread and NOW you tell us you
aren't even operating under them?

Did you have a little seizure there at the end of your message?

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
> Actually, the examiner isn't some automaton who sits there checking
> boxes. (well there're probably one or two who do)
> If he gets into an airplane with a candidate who can't operate the ****
> on board and he imagines this guy putting around like a cow on crack,
> long fingering the day he might learn to use the equipment installed,
> he's going to fail him on general princple.
> He won't say that, of course....

I don't know if my interpretation of the legaleese is correct, but
when I did my test my instructor told me "if it is on the panel, the
examiner will expect you to know how to use it, or at a bare minimum
how to disable it."

So he taught me how to use the GPS that was installed in my club's
Tomahawks. My examiner had no issues at all when I hit the "direct to
nearest" buttons on the GPS when he asked me what I would do if I was
to divert to the closest airport.

Chris

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote in
:

>
> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>> Actually, the examiner isn't some automaton who sits there checking
>> boxes. (well there're probably one or two who do)
>> If he gets into an airplane with a candidate who can't operate the ****
>> on board and he imagines this guy putting around like a cow on crack,
>> long fingering the day he might learn to use the equipment installed,
>> he's going to fail him on general princple.
>> He won't say that, of course....
>
> I don't know if my interpretation of the legaleese is correct, but
> when I did my test my instructor told me "if it is on the panel, the
> examiner will expect you to know how to use it, or at a bare minimum
> how to disable it."
>
> So he taught me how to use the GPS that was installed in my club's
> Tomahawks. My examiner had no issues at all when I hit the "direct to
> nearest" buttons on the GPS when he asked me what I would do if I was
> to divert to the closest airport.
>

Well, it's a bit more than that. Unless youre in an airplane you never flew
before ,he will be looking to see you know how to operate it and all it's
junk safely. It's more of a feeling thing. If you make him feel like he'd
let his kids ride with you after the checkride, he'll sign the piece of
paper.
If a candidate can't be bothered to spend the 15 minutes it takes to learn
how to use a VOR, believe me, he'll know.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> On 1/28/2008 "Gig 601XL Builder" asserted:
>>
>> "Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
>> and use of a VOR was."
>>
>
> And that was the quick reply to Bertie that I mentioned
>

And it was incorrect as you never checked the PP requirenments and found use
of a VOR among them.



>>>
>>> God I love USENET.
>>>
>>
>> That's an odd thing for you to say.
>
> Yes, with guys like you on USENET it is.
>

It's an odd thing for you to say because you appear quite stupid on USENET.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2008 "Gig 601XL Builder" asserted:
>>>
>>> "Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP
>>> requirements and use of a VOR was."
>>>
>>
>> And that was the quick reply to Bertie that I mentioned
>>
>
> And it was incorrect as you never checked the PP requirenments and
> found use of a VOR among them.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> God I love USENET.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an odd thing for you to say.
>>
>> Yes, with guys like you on USENET it is.
>>
>
> It's an odd thing for you to say because you appear quite stupid on
> USENET.


Actually, if anyone is prjecting an image of tpying by pounding on his
keyboard with his forehead and fists, it's you.


Bertie