KCHD to KMYF

VOR-DME writes:

The problem I have is with non-pilots, who don’t know the system, giving
advice to pilots.

In other words, you can't find anything wrong with the suggestion to follow
V66. Your problem is with me, specifically. Like many people, you cannot
discriminate between personality and topic of conversation. You cannot be
objective because you always consider the messenger before the message.

Now ... exactly what's wrong with V66? Not with me, but with the suggestion I
gave. Be specific. I _do_ know the system.

"Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying.

Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but
there are no old, bold pilots. Flying safely has nothing to do with fear, and
it has everything to do with reason and intelligence.

Not that there's anything inherently unsafe about asking permission to fly
over all those firing ranges. But you only gain three minutes, and there are
many opportunities for mistakes to be made when you want to take shortcuts
through restricted areas, even if the controlling authorities give you
permission. You complicate your flight greatly for an insignificant gain. That
is not logical.

The opposite of slow and safe is fast and unsafe. Is that your suggestion?

"Fast and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what everyone is
expecting.

Why does so much traffic follow V66/J2, then? Why did the government bother
creating these airways and threading them between restricted areas if the
majority of pilots are just going to set Direct-To on the GPS and negotiate
their way through missile firing ranges?

If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
"keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what you
want.

Not true, given the number of aircraft that are flying those airways. You
don't have to ask for anything if you follow the routes that are already there
and ready for you to fly.

In article ,
says...


In other words, you can't find anything wrong with the suggestion to follow
V66. Your problem is with me, specifically. Like many people, you cannot
discriminate between personality and topic of conversation. You cannot be
objective because you always consider the messenger before the message.

Quite the contrary, when the "messenger" is demonstrably unqualified, such an
objection is wholly objective, and would be upheld by any qualified scrutiny.



Now ... exactly what's wrong with V66? Not with me, but with the suggestion I
gave. Be specific. I _do_ know the system.

You do not. Once again, the OP didn’t say much about his/her intentions or
capabilities. If filing IFR and slant\G they’re going to be scratching their
heads if you file airways. Doesn’t mean they’ll clear you through the "R’s",
but if you get cleared through these areas, it’s a sure bet there’s no missile
coming your way, and I wouldn’t give it a second thought. MX’s repeated
references to "dying" if you make the slightest misjudgment are clear
indications of his sheer terror of flying and disqualify him categorically as
a credible commentator on the subject.

Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really? You must have a
lot of time on your hands. After the 1656th time flying this desolate route,
what did you learn? Especially considering that not even once did you dare to
ask for a different routing...

I would not presume to make recommendations for other parts of the U.S. with
which I'm not familiar,

Not true, you would and routinely do make comments and recommendations about
any and every subject you know nothing about.
Incidentally, you appear to be unaware of the fact that Victor Airways are not
only mot mandatory, but actually obsolescent, and will not be with us that
much longer after Next-Gen and ADS-B.









"Slow and safe" is only best for non-pilots who are afraid of flying.

Like the old saying goes: There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots,
but
there are no old, bold pilots. Flying safely has nothing to do with fear, and
it has everything to do with reason and intelligence.

Not that there's anything inherently unsafe about asking permission to fly
over all those firing ranges. But you only gain three minutes, and there are
many opportunities for mistakes to be made when you want to take shortcuts
through restricted areas, even if the controlling authorities give you
permission. You complicate your flight greatly for an insignificant gain.
That
is not logical.

The opposite of slow and safe is fast and unsafe. Is that your suggestion?

"Fast and ask for what you want" is the normal way, and it’s what
everyone is
expecting.

Why does so much traffic follow V66/J2, then? Why did the government bother
creating these airways and threading them between restricted areas if the
majority of pilots are just going to set Direct-To on the GPS and negotiate
their way through missile firing ranges?

If you don’t get it, you take what you get. Most pilots’ idea of
"keeping things simple" is saying where you’re going and asking for what
you
want.

Not true, given the number of aircraft that are flying those airways. You
don't have to ask for anything if you follow the routes that are already
there
and ready for you to fly.

VOR-DME writes:

Quite the contrary, when the "messenger" is demonstrably unqualified, such an
objection is wholly objective, and would be upheld by any qualified scrutiny.

The message is either correct, or it isn't, irrespective of its source. If my
message is incorrect, then correct it. And if it is correct, well, it stays
that way whether it came from me or a 25,000-hour ATP, doesn't it?

You do not.

You haven't answered my question: What's wrong with V66?

Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really?

Yes, really. I have thousands of hours of simulation time. The route in
question is one of my favorites, for reasons I have already explained.

You must have a lot of time on your hands.

The spare time I have is mostly spent on simulation.

After the 1656th time flying this desolate route, what did you learn?

Nothing. It doesn't take long to learn everything about it.

Especially considering that not even once did you dare to
ask for a different routing...

I'm not into daring things. I'm into safety and simplicity. The airway is
there for me to use. The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it?

I would not presume to make recommendations for other parts of the U.S. with
which I'm not familiar,

Not true, you would and routinely do make comments and recommendations about
any and every subject you know nothing about.

Read what I wrote. I specifically said that I would not make recommendations
for other parts of the U.S. (with respect to routing). I didn't say anything
about any other subject.

Incidentally, you appear to be unaware of the fact that Victor Airways are not
only mot mandatory, but actually obsolescent, and will not be with us that
much longer after Next-Gen and ADS-B.

They are on the charts and they are current. NextGen is mostly smoke and
mirrors, no matter what the FAA's flashy media kits say. ADS-B will not change
this. As long as the airways are on the charts, I'll continue to use them. You
can do what you want. But if you have a problem with this airway, at least
explain why--thousands of pilots who obstinately continue to use the airway
could benefit from your wisdom.

On May 3, 7:35*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

You haven't answered my question: What's wrong with V66?

Why should he answer your questions when you never answer ours????
Guess what, I have questions for you to answer. Let me guess, you
won't answer.

Flown this route "thousands of times" in simulation? Really?

Yes, really. I have thousands of hours of simulation time. The route in
question is one of my favorites, for reasons I have already explained.

Simulation is not flying an airplane IN THE REAL WORLD. What part of
that do you not understand?

You must have a lot of time on your hands.

The spare time I have is mostly spent on simulation.

Simulation is not flying an airplane IN THE REAL WORLD, what part of
that do you not understand.

These are direct questions, will you please answer. You expect us to
answer your questions. How about reciprocating?

After the 1656th time flying this desolate route, what did you learn?

Nothing. It doesn't take long to learn everything about it.

That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

I'm not into daring things. *I'm into safety and simplicity. *The airway is
there for me to use. *The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it? *

YOU DON'T USE AIRWAYS much less V66. You are USING a simulator. I
don't think federal funds are appropriated to MSFS. What part of that
do you not understand?????

They are on the charts and they are current. NextGen is mostly smoke and
mirrors, no matter what the FAA's flashy media kits say. ADS-B will not change
this.

Oh, how about backing this up with references.

Let me guess, you won't because you don't answer questions when called
to task. These are direct questions, please answer them if you wish
to be of any soure worthy of quality.

writes:

That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 3, 9:36*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
moron.

wow isn't RAP great.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm not into daring things. I'm into safety and simplicity. The airway is
there for me to use. The government spent a lot of time and effort working it
out, and it works very well. So I use it. Why _shouldn't_ I use it?

You are playing a computer game. You are not in a real airplane or in real
airspace and you are not using any real government resource.

It is impossible for you to do anything that isn't "safe" while playing
a computer game.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

You are playing a computer game. You are not in a real airplane or in real
airspace and you are not using any real government resource.

It is impossible for you to do anything that isn't "safe" while playing
a computer game.

You are delusional.

Is there something wrong with flying V66 between Phoenix and Montgomery Field?

Stephen! writes:

I take it you've never met Chuck Yeager in your simulator?

I don't know. I communicate with controllers and I hear other pilots, but I
don't know who they are.