i think I flew into class c airspace accidentally withoutestablishing communication

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

"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

(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

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.

"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".

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.

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.

"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

"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

"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