KCHD to KMYF

On May 4, 11:16*am, Blanche wrote:

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion.

While the route suggestion is perfectly reasonable, his response to
VOR DME was not.

He types in as if he is flying the route, he is not. I mean really he
says (these are HIS words) "I'm not into daring things. I'm into
safety and simplicity". What is daring about going off a victor
highway in MSFS???? What is unsafe about going off a victor highway
in MSFS. Does the computer reboot if he busts airspace? And to my
knowlege even if the computer rebooted, there is nothing unsafe about
a reboot of a computer. Now, if he said his G1000 rebooted while in a
REAL plane, Houston we have a problem. Heck I don't have any glass
cockpit time so maybe it's not a problem. Simply put, if one didn't
catch all the responses, you would never know he has never set foot in
a cockpit.

VOR DME's thoughts were more along what I would have done. Use GPS as
primary navigation not the airway. GPS way more accurate and as long
as you stay out of airspace, you don't belong in, keep the airplane
on the magenta line and maintain VFR with the ground? Nothing risky
or unsafe at all about doing this as long as you are on top of your
game. If you are not, then you shouldn't be flying in complicated
airspace anyway.

I think that when I ask a question that I get answers from qualified
people. I would hope that you would not count Mx as qualified to
answer real world question from MFSX experience.

Routing and flight planning I don't go to MSFS for scenarios. I use a
real bonified flight planner and fly it in the real bonified world
that expands beyond a computer monitor (or two)

All the flight planning in the world doesn't change the fact when you
plan something and something uhhhh, like a cloud (understand not
likely in Phoenix but a scenario) is between you and your
destination. In all my MSFS sim time, this has never happened to me,
yet in the real world, I have had to deviate to avoid the cloud while
VFR several times while ensuring I remain clear of airspace while
enroute. So, I am pretty safe to say Mx is NOT qualified to answering
questions about flight planning.

I think that Mx's background needs to be brought front and center to
those that step into this newsgroup (I have never seen RT12 post
before) so they understand that he is not qualified to respond to real
world situations when he isn't even a student pilot.

On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

On May 4, 1:16*pm, Tiger Boi
wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer wrote:

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

Neither is a moron. I should know since I am one.

Dadd(ie) did you tell everyone why you shot me in the head?
--
Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

That's real mature of you Ari. I'm sure all the pilots
here will consult you opinion on aviation matters.
Yeah, your opinion really counts in rec.ava.piloting.
You're what...10 yrs.old?

---
Mark

At least he didn't *shoot his kitten* like you did, Dadd(ie).
--
Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
flying.

While there’s nothing "wrong" with the route proposed (the whole
argument being a complete fabrication by MX) a more complete response
might have been something like :
"What kind of flight do you wish to make? If VFR, and not enthused about
scud running under 1500’ over missile-firing ranges, you’ll want to plan
to remain south of the Restricted areas west of Phoenix, or give a call
to get cleared through them. Don’t assume you’ll get cleared though, as
some of them have 'continuous' status, so you may have to just avoid
them. Same goes for IFR and GPS-Direct. You can file it, but you may get
the airway V66 instead. If you don’t want to bother with the restricted
areas, just file the airway, or if VFR, keep south of these areas, or
fly the airway."

So, while there’s nothing wrong with V66, there is just everything wrong
with MX’s initial response, and his ensuing vituperative argument. No
wonder of it - those who do not fly airplanes and whose only references
to aviation are a computer screen and some out of date textbooks will
clearly not develop the reflex and practices of pilots.




In article
,
says...


On May 4, 11:16*am, Blanche wrote:

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion.

While the route suggestion is perfectly reasonable, his response to
VOR DME was not.

On May 5, 10:09*am, VOR-DME wrote:
I was simply surprised that the proposed answer to a not very specific
route question was that the "only" viable route involved a VOR and an
airway, when the OP had not said anything about the type of flight or
their preferences. This is simply not true, and as such could not be
considered good advice. I should not have been surprised, because the
response came from a non-pilot, so by definition one who is not used to
flying.

Also, if your training was like mine, in VFR training, I wasn't
trained how to set up my Navs for airway navigation. Yes, I was
trained on tracking a radial TO a VFR during my VFR training but
that's it. The purpose of that was to help me get to a point on the
sectional to locate myself should I get lost.

To figure out where I was in relationship to a VOR, my instructor
showed me how to use the FROM flag. Between the FROM flag and DME, I
was able to figure out where I was in relationship to the VOR.

I think your response was spot on with using GPS. This is the wave of
the future for VFR navigation and in my neck of the country, it's the
preferred method for IFR. Almost without exception, when I filed
airways, I got a "would you like direct" question from ATC. The one
time I wasn't equipped for /G (My GPS antenna become uncoupled) ATC
offered me a 168 mile vector which I graciously accepted as airways
put me out 50 miles off my direct routing.

I did not learn how to track airways until I started my IFR training

Most importantly, there is nothing unsafe about OROCA or MORA
navigation providing all tools are used in flight planning as Mx
implies. This applies to my flatlander flying, I can't say anything
about mountain flying as that I would stay on airways for IFR ops.

In article ,
says...

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor.


If I were you I'd fly BOTH Citations. It's safer - that way if anything unsafe
happens to one, you can just "be" in the other one!

Do you have a Life Simulator? Maybe MSLS?
How many hours do you have in that?

Too bad (for the rest of us) you won't give reality a chance.
That lowly C152, object of disdain, would put you flat on your pompous ass and
face-to-face with reality in approximately 0min,0sec. But alas even this would
not suffice to inspire humility and slow the affront of words to the wise
(from the foolhardy).

Do you often need a "rest" when flying the computer game? So much work?
Stress? When the autopilot is on, what's left? Sit there with your tongue
hanging out, watching the pictures? Does that help with the stress level?



In article ,
says...


Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in
a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll
have
to think about it.

On May 5, 1:08*pm, VOR-DME wrote:

That lowly C152, object of disdain, would put you flat on your pompous ass and
face-to-face with reality in approximately 0min,0sec.

Yep, he would be so far behind the plane if he got into a real plane.
Heck, I would be surprised if he made it to the runway with the rudder
dance needed to follow the taxi line.

Quite different reaching for buttons, knobs, handles and and trying to
keep a nav chart on your lap while getting the snot kicked out of you
trying to keep the plane upright from turbulence then pushing F3 or
F8, right and left arrow keys, move a joystick or pedal once in a blue
moon from the comforts of a lazy boy.

Maybe his lazy boy has a vibrator to simulate turbulence? I can say
first hand that MSFS fails to simulate turbulence. I never had the
keyboard, mouse or joy stick move from it's original position as I
reach for it to make some type of control input adjustment.

Or is the truth of the matter is that MSFS is not flying an airplane.
Sheez.

writes:

Terrain avoidance is always your problem and it makes no difference whether
you are on or off of a Victor airway.

In both cases you have to look at the Sectional and see what the minimum
altitude is for the route.

The sectional doesn't give a minimum altitude for the route. That would be on
the IFR charts.

It is impossible to do anything unsafe in a computer simulation of flight.

No matter what you do, you are still sitting in a chair in front of a
computer screen.

If you need the threat of harm from any mistakes you make just to get you to
behave like a good pilot, there's a problem.

writes:

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

The minimum safe altitude for an airway isn't necessarily the same as the
maximum elevation figure for the quadrant on the sectional. Furthermore,
OROCAs on IFR charts are still different (with a more generous buffer).

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Can you point me to some of them?

writes:

Routing and flight planning I don't go to MSFS for scenarios. I use a
real bonified flight planner and fly it in the real bonified world
that expands beyond a computer monitor (or two)

I don't use MSFS for flight planning, either, as its planning features are
very primitive and not very realistic. I plan as I would for a real-world
flight and then fly that in the sim.

All the flight planning in the world doesn't change the fact when you
plan something and something uhhhh, like a cloud (understand not
likely in Phoenix but a scenario) is between you and your
destination. In all my MSFS sim time, this has never happened to me,
yet in the real world, I have had to deviate to avoid the cloud while
VFR several times while ensuring I remain clear of airspace while
enroute.

Then you don't have your sim configured correctly. Try Active Sky.

So, I am pretty safe to say Mx is NOT qualified to answering
questions about flight planning.

Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.