Night VFR following highways

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

"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...

"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

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.