Near miss from space junk.

"chris" wrote in
oups.com:

On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...





"chris" wrote in message
roups.com...

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

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

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

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

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

--
Duncan

That's right...

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



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

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In article .com,
"chris" wrote:

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

Nope.

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

--
Bob Noel
(trimming is a lost art)

BDS wrote:

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

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

On 2007-04-03 03:14, chris wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:53 pm, "flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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

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

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

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

Is that Gimli the dwarf ???


Nope, not the guy from LotR.

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

BDS writes:

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

It does not exclude these.

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

Whence the utility of experience and practice.

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

On 2007-04-03 04:18, Sylvain wrote:
chris wrote:

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

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

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

--Sylvain

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
chris writes:

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

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


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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Sylvain writes:

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

Not if you know how to fly with instruments.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
"chris" wrote in
oups.com:

On Apr 3, 9:05 pm, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...





"chris" wrote in message
roups.com...

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

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

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

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

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

--
Duncan

That's right...

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



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

--

No problem. Just stick the tanks.