When do you use autopilots?

Judah writes:

Is this route off-airway?

It's a route that I concocted myself from waypoints, which I presume
means that it's not on an established airway (although some of the
waypoints are on airways).

What is the OROCA in that area?

I don't know. I don't have charts, so I guessed based on previous
flights over the area and the en route altitude recommendation of the
simulator (which presumably knows all the heights along the way).

8500 is not an IFR altitude, so unless you will be changing to
VFR on top, you'll probably either be at 8000 or 10000 in real life.

I've never been assigned an en route altitude that isn't an even
thousand by the simulated ATC, but I don't know if that's true in real
life as well. I'm sometimes assigned to the nearest hundred feet for
final descents and interception of localizers and what not.

I don't know the area well enough to know for sure...

I don't have a chart so I don't know the exact heights. I think 8000
would clear everything. The mountains east of San Diego are the
highest points, I believe.

It sounds like you have some ideas of what it takes, but you really should
get some formal training.

Flying a simulator is free and can be done on a time-available basis.
Formal training is very expensive and cannot be easily worked into a
schedule. Otherwise I might well do it, even in a place like France
where I'd be learning a lot of the wrong stuff.

If you're that afraid of flying, you should at least go to a Ground
School course. They are not typically very expensive,
but they are very informative. Another alternative might be to purchase the
Gliem test prep books.

The best I could hope for would be an occasional book. Even books are
costly.

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

Judah writes:

If you're that afraid of flying, you should at least go to a
Ground School course.

I'm not afraid of flying per se, but I'm extremely wary of GA aircraft
and their questionable maintenance records. They are inherently less
safe than larger aircraft as well, but not so much so that one need be
concerned, provided that they are properly maintained and operated.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
I'm not afraid of flying per se, but I'm extremely wary of GA aircraft
and their questionable maintenance records.

They are inherently less safe than larger aircraft as well

Please cite a source for this comment.


, but not so much so that one need be
concerned, provided that they are properly maintained and operated.

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

Steve Foley writes:

Please cite a source for this comment.

The accident statistics. Just the fact that they use piston engines
makes them less reliable, and thus less safe.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

Please cite a source for this comment.

The accident statistics. Just the fact that they use piston engines
makes them less reliable, and thus less safe.

No source, huh?

Well that explains it. Flight training is very expensive, by anybodies
standard. I have met millionaires from Monaco, in Canada, to do their
training.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The Visitor writes:


Where aare you located?


Paris, France

I find altitude much harder to hold steady on flight simulators than on
real aircraft. Something about the control pressures, I suspect.

--Dan


Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

The accepted limits are documented in the Airmen Practical Test Standards,
which you can read online he

http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...ards/pilot/med
ia/FAA-S-8081-14A.pdf

The limits for Instrument flight are slightly "tighter" and are documented
he

http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...ards/media/FAA
-S-8081-4D.pdf

2 degrees of heading is acceptable. 150 feet of altitude, however, is not.

Thanks. I have saved these documents and will examine them in greater
detail as time permits.

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

The,

Well that explains it.


No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. Read some older threads with the
troll...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan writes:

I find altitude much harder to hold steady on flight simulators than on
real aircraft. Something about the control pressures, I suspect.

That's good to hear (in a sense). If it were worse on real aircraft,
I'd be even more worried.

I certainly cannot trim by trying to feel control pressures diminish.
Of course, that method isn't guaranteed to work on a real aircraft,
either.

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

Steve Foley wrote:

Please cite a source for this comment.


Perhaps you want to shoot the messenger, but it is true.

Transport catagory aircraft are safer than GA aircraft.

Dual load paths, for instance. Many critical loads carried by the
airframe are dual load paths, one can actually fail. I think there are
only 2 bizjets certified to the older part 25 standards. Before they got
watered down. Or was it 23? No I think 25. I am Canadian and not up you
your certification standards. But it seems, more-so than you.

Bird strike testing. I have seen birds come off the glass of transport
aircraft, and pictures of birds entering the cocpits of ga aircraft.

Lightning strike protection. Discharge paths, no I am not talking about
the static wicks. I have a friend in a large jet that took a hit that
would no doubt would blow apart a ga plane.

I will simpify this part. One thing that makes turbines safer than
pistons. A turbine (okay yes, there are ga turbines now) never flies out
of the green arc (30 fps). Many piston operators fly (moonies of course)
and decend letting the airspeed build up into the yellow in smooth air.
Aside from not beeing painted, but addressing the certification
standards, a turbine redline(parber pole) allows for the same gust load
tolerance as the top of the yellow arc (15 fps). Pistons are allowed to
fly faster such that less of a gust load and break them. Why? Well so
they can go faster and be popular? Perhaps. Then this was changed for
pistons somewhat but also was the way it was calculated resulting in
little change overall.

Out of time. I am supposed to be working on something.

Cite a source? Ha! Too basic to bother. Get educated.

Adding to safety, dual and triple, "this and thats" (technical phrase
for things like actuators and means to split controls or disconnect).
Plus the way they are required to be operated. I am sure though all this
would go out the window if the pilot training was the same as for GA. I
think is some parts of the world it is.

John