Night VFR following highways

[Mxsmanic]

Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? At
night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
usable at night?

[Ross]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? At
> night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
> usable at night?

Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available? However, on a
clear night you can see the far away town lights. You just need to be
sure that the lights you see are the town you want. I'll stay with my
GPS for navigation.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mxsmanic]

Ross writes:

> Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available?

Mainly just for practice, in case the radio navigation fails or something.

> However, on a
> clear night you can see the far away town lights. You just need to be
> sure that the lights you see are the town you want. I'll stay with my
> GPS for navigation.

What if the GPS stops working?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
> highways? At night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be
> much else that's visible. It seems to me that if you can clearly see
> the highway, it can guide you and you can get a good idea of where you
> are with respect to terrain, so it should work. Are there hidden
> dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often navigate by following
> highways? What other forms of visual navigation are usable at night?


I use the reflection of the table lamp on my monitor screen.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Ross > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
>> highways? At night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be
>> much else that's visible. It seems to me that if you can clearly see
>> the highway, it can guide you and you can get a good idea of where
>> you are with respect to terrain, so it should work. Are there hidden
>> dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often navigate by
>> following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are usable
>> at night?
>
> Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available?

If you're flying a no radio airplane?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ross writes:
>
>> Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available?
>
> Mainly just for practice, in case the radio navigation fails or
> something.

Why, you don't fly.
Or is your latest terorist target a night target?


Bertie

[Ross]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Ross > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
>>>highways? At night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be
>>>much else that's visible. It seems to me that if you can clearly see
>>>the highway, it can guide you and you can get a good idea of where
>>>you are with respect to terrain, so it should work. Are there hidden
>>>dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often navigate by
>>>following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are usable
>>>at night?
>>
>>Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available?
>
>
> If you're flying a no radio airplane?
>
>
> Bertie

Then I guess I would follow roads, but might buy a handheld GPS if I was
going to do a lot of this.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways?

Please note that MX is xposting to R.A.S.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? At
> night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
> usable at night?

About the only reason to follow highways (other than it just happens to
go where you want to go) at night is you are guaranteed that there is
nothing directly above the highway (such as a mountain peak), which is
handy for going through things like passes on dark nights and areas
dotted with high peaks.

However, the only way one would know visually that they are really
over most highways at night is from the real lights of real traffic.

Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
headlights, why would you care?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
> headlights, why would you care?

Actually, the sim does put traffic on the highways.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
>> headlights, why would you care?
>
> Actually, the sim does put traffic on the highways.
>

No it doesn't. it makes little colored pixtels.


Bertie

[gatt[_2_]]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways?

My father-in-law (ANG helicopter crewman) takes "IFR" to mean "I Follow
Roads " (or rivers)

>> At night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's
>> visible.
>> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you
>> and
>> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it
>> should
>> work.

Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the stretch
through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight line with a
pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from Portland (possible
Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day or note you could follow
the freeway the entire route.

You'd still use your VFR navigation aids and checkpoints to make sure know
how far you are enroute, and also to avoid controlled airspace, etc, but
having that road, railroad, river makes for a more-enjoyable flight.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways?
>
> Please note that MX is xposting to R.A.S.

He's asking a legitimate question, though. That's useful on R.A.S. (so
far), so I took it at face value.

-c

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
> >> headlights, why would you care?
>
> > Actually, the sim does put traffic on the highways.
>
> No it doesn't. it makes little colored pixtels.
>
> Bertie

Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
living their lives.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 1, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> innews:9717q3lb3kndi6fsgoecrg5p2f2c4hn
> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with
>> >> real headlights, why would you care?
>>
>> > Actually, the sim does put traffic on the highways.
>>
>> No it doesn't. it makes little colored pixtels.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
> simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
> living their lives.
>

Really. I wonder where he's going to fly to tonight?


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:16:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Feb 1, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>>> innews:9717q3lb3kndi6fsgoecrg5p2f2c4hn
>> :
>>>
>>> > writes:
>>>
>>> >> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with
>>> >> real headlights, why would you care?
>>>
>>> > Actually, the sim does put traffic on the highways.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. it makes little colored pixtels.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
>> simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
>> living their lives.
>>
>
>Really. I wonder where he's going to fly to tonight?

Does it matter? All he has to do is turn on the light.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>
> Really. I wonder where he's going to fly to tonight?
>
>
> Bertie

Obviously the answer is Phoenix.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 12:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night

Yes.

If you actually flew, then you'd know that the Bogeyman comes out at
night... and he makes your engine run rough for no good reason at all,
and will let you fly right smack into a cloud without being able to
see it in front of you, and play tricks on your eyes when you are
descending on short final, and all kinds of other Bad Stuff (tm).

Now having said that, I've flown a lot at night, single engine, vfr,
and I'm still alive after doing it regularly for ten years. In real
airplanes too. I think the Bogeyman might be scared of me. But I do
try to stay in gliding distance of a highway wherever possible. If the
Bogeyman does hop onto my wing at night like a bad Twilight Zone
episode with William Shatner, , I'd rather take my chances on a dead
stick landing with the wires crossing the road and the cars, than the
unseeable terrain in the dark. And yes, I'll leave the landing light
on for the duration.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13q73hucpg6e8c6
@news.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Really. I wonder where he's going to fly to tonight?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Obviously the answer is Phoenix.
>

Doh!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 2:34*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night
>
> Yes.
>
> If you actually flew, then you'd know that the Bogeyman comes out at
> night... and he makes your engine run rough for no good reason at all,
> and will let you fly right smack into a cloud without being able to
> see it in front of you, and play tricks on your eyes when you are
> descending on short final, and all kinds of other Bad Stuff (tm).
>
> Now having said that, I've flown a lot at night, single engine, vfr,
> and I'm still alive after doing it regularly for ten years. In real
> airplanes too. I think the Bogeyman might be scared of me. But I do
> try to stay in gliding distance of a highway wherever possible. If the
> Bogeyman does hop onto my wing at night like a bad Twilight Zone
> episode with William Shatner, , I'd rather take my chances on a dead
> stick landing with the wires crossing the road and the cars, than the
> unseeable terrain in the dark. *And yes, I'll leave the landing light
> on for the duration.

Unless you don't like what you see toward the end, then just turn it
off...

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

> About the only reason to follow highways (other than it just happens to
> go where you want to go) at night is you are guaranteed that there is
> nothing directly above the highway (such as a mountain peak), which is
> handy for going through things like passes on dark nights and areas
> dotted with high peaks.

"Guaranteed" is a bit of a strong word. Don't forget about tunnels and
power lines.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the stretch
> through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight line with a
> pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from Portland (possible
> Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day or note you could follow
> the freeway the entire route.

I followed a highway up to Alaska. In daylight,however.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Frank Stutzman > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

> > About the only reason to follow highways (other than it just happens to
> > go where you want to go) at night is you are guaranteed that there is
> > nothing directly above the highway (such as a mountain peak), which is
> > handy for going through things like passes on dark nights and areas
> > dotted with high peaks.

> "Guaranteed" is a bit of a strong word. Don't forget about tunnels and
> power lines.

Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
route is an idiot.

Tunnels I'd have to think about; I can't think of any that aren't on
a twisty mountain road in terrain I would never fly in at night
anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[paul k. sanchez]

On Feb 1, 1:28*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? *At
> night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> work. *Are there hidden dangers in this? *Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> navigate by following highways? *What other forms of visual navigation are
> usable at night?

I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
done this flight.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Now having said that, I've flown a lot at night, single engine, vfr,
>> and I'm still alive after doing it regularly for ten years. In real
>> airplanes too. I think the Bogeyman might be scared of me. But I do
>> try to stay in gliding distance of a highway wherever possible. If the
>> Bogeyman does hop onto my wing at night like a bad Twilight Zone
>> episode with William Shatner, , I'd rather take my chances on a dead
>> stick landing with the wires crossing the road and the cars, than the
>> unseeable terrain in the dark. And yes, I'll leave the landing light
>> on for the duration.
>
> Unless you don't like what you see toward the end, then just turn it
> off...


Why? Impact will extinguish it soon enough.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> My father-in-law (ANG helicopter crewman) takes "IFR" to mean "I Follow
> Roads " (or rivers)

There is a sobering story right along those lines at

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

I find it interesting that the author says this VFR flight scared him more
than any of his combat missions in Vietnam.

> Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the stretch
> through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight line with a
> pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from Portland (possible
> Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day or note you could follow
> the freeway the entire route.
>
> You'd still use your VFR navigation aids and checkpoints to make sure know
> how far you are enroute, and also to avoid controlled airspace, etc, but
> having that road, railroad, river makes for a more-enjoyable flight.

Good. I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some risk or danger to following
highways. From the article above I learned that things like wires and cables
are a real risk if you're very close to the highway, but only a helicopter
would be that low.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
> simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
> living their lives.

That depends on the sim, the scenery used, and other things. At a minimum,
you get simulated headlights, which is all you need to follow the highway.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
> route is an idiot.

Here is the "idiot's" story:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

[Mxsmanic]

paul k. sanchez writes:

> I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
> Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
> with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
> done this flight.

I've done that, but with radio navigation aids. Even so, it was pretty
harrowing.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 1:35*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? *At
> > night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> > It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> > you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> > work. *Are there hidden dangers in this? *Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> > navigate by following highways? *What other forms of visual navigation are
> > usable at night?
>
> About the only reason to follow highways (other than it just happens to
> go where you want to go) at night is you are guaranteed that there is
> nothing directly above the highway (such as a mountain peak), which is
> handy for going through things like passes on dark nights and areas
> dotted with high peaks.
>
> However, the only way one would know visually that they are really
> over most highways at night is from the real lights of real traffic.
>
> Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
> headlights, why would you care?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Unless the highway goes through a tunnel....... : < (

[Kyle Boatright]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways?
>> At
>> night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's
>> visible.
>> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you
>> and
>> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it
>> should
>> work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
>> navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation
>> are
>> usable at night?
>
> Why would you want to when VORs ang GPSs are available? However, on a
> clear night you can see the far away town lights. You just need to be sure
> that the lights you see are the town you want. I'll stay with my GPS for
> navigation.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

I'm not IFR qualified and have followed known (to me) interstates on murky
nights when I was over the boonies and the murk was sufficient to block out
the moon and stars. In rural areas, headlights on the highways can be your
only visual tell-tale for up vs down on a murky night.

Been there, done that.

KB

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
>> route is an idiot.
>
> Here is the "idiot's" story:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

It is rather strange to put "idiot" in quotes when the entire point of the
story was that this guy was, on that particular night, really, really
stupid.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

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

> > Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
> > simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
> > living their lives.

> That depends on the sim, the scenery used, and other things. At a minimum,
> you get simulated headlights, which is all you need to follow the highway.

And I'm sure it is all very realistic, just like the back pressure
on the yoke...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

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

> > Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
> > route is an idiot.

> Here is the "idiot's" story:

> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

Yeah, so?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:35?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? ?At
> > > night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> > > It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> > > you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> > > work. ?Are there hidden dangers in this? ?Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> > > navigate by following highways? ?What other forms of visual navigation are
> > > usable at night?
> >
> > About the only reason to follow highways (other than it just happens to
> > go where you want to go) at night is you are guaranteed that there is
> > nothing directly above the highway (such as a mountain peak), which is
> > handy for going through things like passes on dark nights and areas
> > dotted with high peaks.
> >
> > However, the only way one would know visually that they are really
> > over most highways at night is from the real lights of real traffic.
> >
> > Since there is no real traffic on your simulated highways with real
> > headlights, why would you care?
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Unless the highway goes through a tunnel....... : < (

You're behind the power curve.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> paul k. sanchez writes:

> > I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
> > Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
> > with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
> > done this flight.

> I've done that, but with radio navigation aids. Even so, it was pretty
> harrowing.

You sound like a very small child.

You know sims are pretend, don't you?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > paul k. sanchez writes:
>
> > > I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
> > > Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
> > > with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
> > > done this flight.
>
> > I've done that, but with radio navigation aids. Even so, it was pretty
> > harrowing.
>
> You sound like a very small child.
>
> You know sims are pretend, don't you?

Sadly, he doesn't, no.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And I'm sure it is all very realistic, just like the back pressure
> on the yoke...

If you have the right attitude and are reasonably intelligent, yes, it is very
realistic.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> It is rather strange to put "idiot" in quotes when the entire point of the
> story was that this guy was, on that particular night, really, really
> stupid.

I was being charitable; I guess charity is too rarely seen on USENET to be
recognizable.

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

> Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
> route is an idiot.

Agreed. However, it doesn't take much of a lapse in judgement.

Case in point. I used to live in the Columbia River Gorge, about
an hour east of Portland, OR. In this part of the Gorge, the
river is about a mile wide and is at an elevation of about 300 msl.
There is steep terrain on both sides of the river that rapidly goes
to 3000 and (in a few places 5000). The south side has a 4 lane
freeway and the north side has a fairly busy 2 lane highway.

It is not uncommon for the weather to be realtively ok at both
ends of the gorge but have ceilings of below 1200 or so feet in the
middle. There are at least two places where there are cables
crossing the river that are about 500 feet or about 800 msl.

The temptation is to go down the gorge and continually be trying to
sneak under the clouds. Hey, the weather man says its clear in The
Dalles (eastern end of the gorge). We got good landmarks visible off
both wing tips. These low clouds can't last more than a few miles,
right?

I've gotten a cheap motel twice in Portland rather than attempting
to go down the gorge in the dark. However, I certainly can see how
someone could sucker themselfs into a really bad situation.I've done
a lot of dumb things in a plane that I said would never allow happen
to me. Fortunately, this situation is not one of them.


> Tunnels I'd have to think about; I can't think of any that aren't on
> a twisty mountain road in terrain I would never fly in at night
> anyway.

Well, to be honest, me neither. I did a little googling, though.
The Big Walker Tunnel between Virgina and West Virgina is 4,200 feet
long and goes under a 3000 foot "mountain". I put mountain in quotes
because to this left coast boy, 3000 feet doesn't make much of a
mountain. But I have no experiance flying in that part of the country.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> It is rather strange to put "idiot" in quotes when the entire point of the
>> story was that this guy was, on that particular night, really, really
>> stupid.
>
> I was being charitable; I guess charity is too rarely seen on USENET to be
> recognizable.

Charity is like respect. It is given to those who deserve it;
who earn it. You haven't earned it from anyone here. And the route (no
pun intended) you're going, you never will.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHo+uIyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqfLAKCtQkimnn0OHhtJnpFFGy YqtSRgtwCfbPsm
a5otdxm25nkf4yF8BJFr1BE=
=AZQL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> It is rather strange to put "idiot" in quotes when the entire point of the
>> story was that this guy was, on that particular night, really, really
>> stupid.
>
> I was being charitable; I guess charity is too rarely seen on USENET to be
> recognizable.

Maybe you thought you were being charitable, but you weren't. When an
article's entire purpose is for the author to explain an incident in which
ha was stupid in the hopes that others can learn from his mistakes, using
scare quotes to imply that maybe he wasn't actually stupid at all is not
being charitable.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

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

> > And I'm sure it is all very realistic, just like the back pressure
> > on the yoke...

> If you have the right attitude and are reasonably intelligent, yes, it is very
> realistic.

Translation: If you ignore all the discrepancies and have a really good
imagination, it is almost, sorta, kinda, realistic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 1, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following highways? At
> night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's visible.
> It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
> you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it should
> work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
> navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
> usable at night?

A danger is hitting towers, (TV, radio) that are usually
close to hwy's for maintenance.

Yes, I know they are supposed to be lit and yes
they should be noticeable if not shrouded in fog.
But every few years a bertie wins the Darwin by
finding one while dorking in an A/C, fortunately
that improves the gene pool.
Ken

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:

> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > paul k. sanchez writes:
> >
> > > > I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
> > > > Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
> > > > with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
> > > > done this flight.
> >
> > > I've done that, but with radio navigation aids. Even so, it was pretty
> > > harrowing.
> >
> > You sound like a very small child.
> >
> > You know sims are pretend, don't you?

> Sadly, he doesn't, no.

Yeah, probably not.

While a 4 year old who has watched a scary movie can be reassured by
"it is just pretend", I don't think he is capable of understanding
"pretend".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Translation: If you ignore all the discrepancies and have a really good
> imagination, it is almost, sorta, kinda, realistic.

Approximately, yes. For any type of simulation, you need some amount of
imagination, and intelligence is a great aid to simulation, because it allows
you to fill in the blanks in a realistic way. Stupid people have trouble with
simulation because they only see what is there.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Charity is like respect. It is given to those who deserve it;
> who earn it.

So how do starving children earn charity?

> You haven't earned it from anyone here.

I don't have a need for it.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Maybe you thought you were being charitable, but you weren't. When an
> article's entire purpose is for the author to explain an incident in which
> ha was stupid in the hopes that others can learn from his mistakes, using
> scare quotes to imply that maybe he wasn't actually stupid at all is not
> being charitable.

If I had not put it in quotes, someone would have criticized me for calling
him an idiot. So it doesn't really matter.

[[email protected]]

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

> > Translation: If you ignore all the discrepancies and have a really good
> > imagination, it is almost, sorta, kinda, realistic.

> Approximately, yes. For any type of simulation, you need some amount of
> imagination, and intelligence is a great aid to simulation, because it allows
> you to fill in the blanks in a realistic way. Stupid people have trouble with
> simulation because they only see what is there.

Translation: people that see reality MX deems to be stupid.

Do you have the slightest clue you are playing a game?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

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

> > Maybe you thought you were being charitable, but you weren't. When an
> > article's entire purpose is for the author to explain an incident in which
> > ha was stupid in the hopes that others can learn from his mistakes, using
> > scare quotes to imply that maybe he wasn't actually stupid at all is not
> > being charitable.

> If I had not put it in quotes, someone would have criticized me for calling
> him an idiot. So it doesn't really matter.

Much like your existense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> My father-in-law (ANG helicopter crewman) takes "IFR" to mean "I
>> Follow Roads " (or rivers)
>
> There is a sobering story right along those lines at
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html
>
> I find it interesting that the author says this VFR flight scared him
> more than any of his combat missions in Vietnam.
>
>> Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the
>> stretch through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight
>> line with a pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from
>> Portland (possible Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day
>> or note you could follow the freeway the entire route.
>>
>> You'd still use your VFR navigation aids and checkpoints to make sure
>> know how far you are enroute, and also to avoid controlled airspace,
>> etc, but having that road, railroad, river makes for a more-enjoyable
>> flight.
>
> Good. I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some risk or danger to
> following highways. From the article above I learned that things like
> wires and cables are a real risk if you're very close to the highway,
> but only a helicopter would be that low.


Wow, hittign a virtual wire in a virtual airplane could really ruin your
day if you were insane!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Actually, it simulates little colored pixels which simulate cars in a
>> simulated world so that people with nothing better to do can simulate
>> living their lives.
>
> That depends on the sim, the scenery used, and other things.


Yeh, obviously.


What an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And I'm sure it is all very realistic, just like the back pressure
>> on the yoke...
>
> If you have the right attitude and are reasonably intelligent, yes, it
> is very realistic.
>

IOW if you have your hea up your ass and you believe in the tooth fairy,
it's very realistic

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Translation: If you ignore all the discrepancies and have a really
>> good imagination, it is almost, sorta, kinda, realistic.
>
> Approximately, yes.


Nope. it isn't realisti at all fjukkwit.

It's a toy, period.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Anyone flying at night low enough to worry about power lines in
>> route is an idiot.
>
> Here is the "idiot's" story:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html
>

So, you want to simulate idiocy now do you?

I got news for you, that is the one thing you do not need a sim for...


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> It is rather strange to put "idiot" in quotes when the entire point
>> of the story was that this guy was, on that particular night, really,
>> really stupid.
>
> I was being charitable; I guess charity is too rarely seen on USENET
> to be recognizable.
>

What, your wish list not working out so good , beggar boy?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Charity is like respect. It is given to those who deserve it;
>> who earn it.
>
> So how do starving children earn charity?
>


They make a plea on amazon?


Perhaps Anthony should register with Unicef as well.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Maybe you thought you were being charitable, but you weren't. When an
>> article's entire purpose is for the author to explain an incident in
>> which ha was stupid in the hopes that others can learn from his
>> mistakes, using scare quotes to imply that maybe he wasn't actually
>> stupid at all is not being charitable.
>
> If I had not put it in quotes, someone would have criticized me for
> calling him an idiot. So it doesn't really matter.


That's right. Nothing about you matters.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> paul k. sanchez writes:
>
>> I would suggest doing a flight then at night so you could find out.
>> Perhaps along some mountain passes with 3.1 statue mile visibility,
>> with appropriate distance from clouds. Please lets us know after you
>> done this flight.
>
> I've done that, but with radio navigation aids. Even so, it was pretty
> harrowing.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhah hwhahwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwh
ahwhahwhhahwhahwahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhw hahhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh
ahhhahwhahhahahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhw hawh!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 1, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
>> highways? At night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be
>> much else that's visible. It seems to me that if you can clearly see
>> the highway, it can guide you and you can get a good idea of where
>> you are with respect to terrain, so it should work. Are there hidden
>> dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often navigate by
>> following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are usable
>> at night?
>
> A danger is hitting towers, (TV, radio) that are usually
> close to hwy's for maintenance.


Not to mention the antennae coming out of your tinfoil hat.
>
> Yes, I know they are supposed to be lit and yes
> they should be noticeable if not shrouded in fog.
> But every few years a bertie wins the Darwin by
> finding one while dorking in an A/C, fortunately
> that improves the gene pool.


Ah, if only that were true.



Bertie

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> Maybe you thought you were being charitable, but you weren't. When an
>> article's entire purpose is for the author to explain an incident in which
>> ha was stupid in the hopes that others can learn from his mistakes, using
>> scare quotes to imply that maybe he wasn't actually stupid at all is not
>> being charitable.
>
> If I had not put it in quotes, someone would have criticized me for calling
> him an idiot. So it doesn't really matter.

You could have left out the word entirly. You could have said
"self-described idiot". You could have simply not posted, since you had
already posted the link in this thread. So many things you could have done
which would not make you look like a tool.

In any case, since when is the amount of criticism you receive for a post
the only thing that matters? For a guy who supposedly doesn't care what
anyone thinks about him, you sure seem to make a big deal about it.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Kyle Boatright]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
>> I'm not IFR qualified and have followed known (to me) interstates on
>> murky
>> nights when I was over the boonies and the murk was sufficient to block
>> out
>> the moon and stars. In rural areas, headlights on the highways can be
>> your
>> only visual tell-tale for up vs down on a murky night.
>
> I have flown VFR on clear, moonless nights where it can be difficult to
> determine if the light I see is a star on the horizon or a light in a
> barnyard. A quick glance at the attitude indicator usually settles that
> arguement.

No doubt that the AI is a great tool, but if you're having to rely on
instruments to determine up vs down, are you really VFR? Following a
highway does give you a visual up/down reference, which also helps with the
spatial disorientation thing...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

>
> "John Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not IFR qualified and have followed known (to me) interstates on
>>> murky
>>> nights when I was over the boonies and the murk was sufficient to
>>> block out
>>> the moon and stars. In rural areas, headlights on the highways can
>>> be your
>>> only visual tell-tale for up vs down on a murky night.
>>
>> I have flown VFR on clear, moonless nights where it can be difficult
>> to determine if the light I see is a star on the horizon or a light
>> in a barnyard. A quick glance at the attitude indicator usually
>> settles that arguement.
>
> No doubt that the AI is a great tool, but if you're having to rely on
> instruments to determine up vs down, are you really VFR?

Sure. You coudl be in inky blackness with no visual reference and if you
can see the prescribed distance, then you comply with the rules.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> In any case, since when is the amount of criticism you receive for a post
> the only thing that matters?

Read what I wrote: "So it really doesn't matter."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Michael Ash writes:
>
>> In any case, since when is the amount of criticism you receive for a
>> post the only thing that matters?
>
> Read what I wrote: "So it really doesn't matter."
>

Mostly because you don't matter.

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:55:17 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>:

>if you're having to rely on
>instruments to determine up vs down, are you really VFR?

It would seem to me, that day or night if you're operating in VMC you
can do so under VFR. I'm not aware of a regulation that requires a
horizon for VFR operation.

That said, on moonless nights over sparsely populated areas like the
Mojave Desert it's not uncommon to find yourself scanning the
instruments as you scan for traffic.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13q73hucpg6e8c6
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Really. I wonder where he's going to fly to tonight?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Obviously the answer is Phoenix.
>>
>
> Doh!
>
> Bertie


MXSMANIC didn't really write but should have:

Subject: Patriots Win Sim Super bowl 42!!

I flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor yesterday in my Baron and made it to the
field just in time to watch the kick-off of the Madden '07 Super bowl.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> From the article above I learned that things like wires and cables
> are a real risk if you're very close to the highway, but only a helicopter
> would be that low.


Why would you say that?

There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
rotary wing aircraft. And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more
altitude the more options when there is a failure.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Why would you say that?

Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they are not
obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

> There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
> rotary wing aircraft.

There are big differences in flying over a road at 25 feet and 3 knots, and
flying over a road at 25 feet and 95 knots.

> And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more altitude the
> more options when there is a failure.

But at extremely low altitudes, the number of options required is reduced. If
the engine fails in a helicopter at ten feet above the ground, it's not really
a crisis. On a large flat area of ground, this can be true for an airplane,
too, but airplanes have the added danger of rapid forward movement.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> I flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor yesterday in my Baron and made it to the
> field just in time to watch the kick-off of the Madden '07 Super bowl.

It must have been real life, as VATSIM prohibited VFR operations at KPHX
yesterday.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Why would you say that?
>
> Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they are not
> obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
VFR flight between two points. In that case one could expect both
fixed and rotary wing aircraft to be traveling at a reasonable cruise
speed.



>
>> There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
>> rotary wing aircraft.
>
> There are big differences in flying over a road at 25 feet and 3 knots, and
> flying over a road at 25 feet and 95 knots.
>

No not really. Both would be a violation in almost all cases.



>> And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more altitude the
>> more options when there is a failure.
>
> But at extremely low altitudes, the number of options required is reduced. If
> the engine fails in a helicopter at ten feet above the ground, it's not really
> a crisis. On a large flat area of ground, this can be true for an airplane,
> too, but airplanes have the added danger of rapid forward movement.

Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor yesterday in my Baron and made it to the
>> field just in time to watch the kick-off of the Madden '07 Super bowl.
>
> It must have been real life, as VATSIM prohibited VFR operations at KPHX
> yesterday.

You mean you don't have your simulated instrument certification.

Here you go I'll make you one.



_______________________________________
|
| Mxsmanic is hereby certified to
| Simulate IFR Flight.
|
|
|______________________________________

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Why would you say that?
>
> Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they
> are not obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

Wrong, fjukktard.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> I flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor yesterday in my Baron and made it to the
>> field just in time to watch the kick-off of the Madden '07 Super bowl.
>
> It must have been real life, as VATSIM prohibited VFR operations at KPHX
> yesterday.
>

Nope

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> I flew into Phoenix Sky Harbor yesterday in my Baron and made it to
>>> the field just in time to watch the kick-off of the Madden '07 Super
>>> bowl.
>>
>> It must have been real life, as VATSIM prohibited VFR operations at
>> KPHX yesterday.
>
> You mean you don't have your simulated instrument certification.

Oh they probably have one. It's *that* sad.


Bertie

[BT]

>What other forms of visual navigation are usable at night?

Dead Reckoning (DR) from town to town..

IFR = I Follow Roads = I Follow Rail Roads (hard to do at night)

BT

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
> VFR flight between two points.

In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed hovering
over the highway, in a helicopter.

> Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
> at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.

Explain.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You mean you don't have your simulated instrument certification.

I didn't say anything about me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking
>> about a
>> VFR flight between two points.
>
> In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed
> hovering over the highway, in a helicopter.
>

That's not what you said fjukktard, you said forward speed doesn't matter.

You were wrong.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You mean you don't have your simulated instrument certification.
>
> I didn't say anything about me.
>

Implied.

Denail noted.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
>> VFR flight between two points.
>
> In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed hovering
> over the highway, in a helicopter.

Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere do
you mention helicopters.

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
highways? At
night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's
visible.
It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it
should
work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
usable at night?"


>
>> Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
>> at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.
>
> Explain.


It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
auto-rotation. As forward speed increases the ability to perform a
proper run-on landing increases. In a run-on landing you are pretty much
treating the helo like a fixed wing.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere do
> you mention helicopters.

I said "in the article that gave rise to my comment," meaning an article to
which I provided a pointer. That article described the experience of a
helicopter pilot in marginal VFR at night.

> It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
> auto-rotation.

Ten feet? I've seen helicopters fall to the ground from this height in videos
and while the helicopters may not survive if they don't remain upright, it
looks as though the occupants often can walk away from it. An engine failure
would be more gentle than a simple fall.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere
>> do you mention helicopters.
>
> I said "in the article that gave rise to my comment," meaning an
> article to which I provided a pointer. That article described the
> experience of a helicopter pilot in marginal VFR at night.
>
>> It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
>> auto-rotation.
>
> Ten feet? I've seen helicopters fall to the ground from this height
> in videos and while the helicopters may not survive if they don't
> remain upright, it looks as though the occupants often can walk away
> from it. An engine failure would be more gentle than a simple fall.
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere do
>> you mention helicopters.
>
> I said "in the article that gave rise to my comment," meaning an article to
> which I provided a pointer. That article described the experience of a
> helicopter pilot in marginal VFR at night.

And we were supposed to know that, how?


>
>> It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
>> auto-rotation.
>
> Ten feet? I've seen helicopters fall to the ground from this height in videos
> and while the helicopters may not survive if they don't remain upright, it
> looks as though the occupants often can walk away from it. An engine failure
> would be more gentle than a simple fall.

Depends on the helo and more importantly how it lands. They are designed
to handle some amount of hard landing but a hard landing can easily turn
into an overturned craft and then all bets are off.

Anything short of 400 feet and auto-rotation probably isn't going to be
successful.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> And we were supposed to know that, how?

By following the thread, and actually reading the article.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> And we were supposed to know that, how?
>
> By following the thread, and actually reading the article.
>

Yeh. like any of your posts are worth following

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> And we were supposed to know that, how?
>
> By following the thread, and actually reading the article.

Damn, you are an idiot.

I quoted your original post and you admitted that you hadn't mentioned
helos in it.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Damn, you are an idiot.
>
> I quoted your original post and you admitted that you hadn't mentioned
> helos in it.

So? I explained where the reference came from.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Damn, you are an idiot.
>>
>> I quoted your original post and you admitted that you hadn't mentioned
>> helos in it.
>
> So? I explained where the reference came from.
>

Nope.


Bertie