Your favorite altitude

"buttman" wrote in news:1176578878.799988.243290
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

and you all are obviously having fun being played.

Not all, but certainly some.

On Apr 15, 7:27 am, "buttman" wrote:
On Apr 13, 9:13 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Jb,

Someone in r.a.* recently suggested to him that he
might not be harassed as much if he tried taking advice from real
pilots and not constantly poking a stick in the hornet's nest to see
what happens. Obviously, he hasn't learned.

You're completely off-base here. He doesn't want to change that
behavious. It's exactly what he wants to do. He is not after
information, but rather he wants to have fun playing us.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

and you all are obviously having fun being played.


Pilots enjoy talking flying with other pilots.
Mixup is merely banking upon the hope that some may not notice that he
is a game playing kook

My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be doing
it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

LOL...

I suppose I can understand what your saying... but anyone who depends
on using Off Altitudes for traffic avoidance already has problems
unrelated to their scheme for picking altitudes... Especially in the
heavily air-trafficed scenic areas I'm describing, where out of town
(and inexperienced) pilots are bobbing up, down, left and right
jockeying for the best view

There is nothing about flying at an off-level that in and of itself
promotes collision avoidance... in fact, if anything, not being where
you're 'expected' to be might have a slight effect to the contrary.
however - in a situation where "see-and-avoid" is the rule, and Norcal
approach is calling out traffic calls virtually non stop, I see being
at an 'off' level as being just one more slight layer of protection...
if everything else breaks down... I fail to see him, he fails to see
me, ATC fails to see either of us, and we just so happen end up at the
exact same position at the exact same time, then there is slightly
more chance that we'll do so at enough of a varying altitude that it
won't end both of our day.

Obviously, for this to have any effect, every other mechanism out
there for keeping us out of eachother's paths must have failed
(including gross failures for both of us in our PIC duties)... But
given the nature of the airspace in question... I'll take that slight
level of added contingency.

And I highly doubt that enough people on here will read my tactic, let
alone actually start practicing it, to have any statistically
noticable effect on GA flying practices over the SF Bay But even if
they did, just the idea of getting pilot's to 'spread out' over our
available altitudes instead of bunching up on a few 'typical' wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing... IMHO at least.

"EridanMan" wrote in
ups.com:

My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be
doing it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

LOL...

As a practice, I typically fly 100' over or under the 000 or 500.

But I was just joking about spreading the word. I didn't make up the idea, I
heard it from someone else and thought it was a good one.

On Apr 14, 7:56 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in oglegroups.com...





On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gene Seibel writes:
Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally fly
at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go down
to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend to
fly a little higher at night.

From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of Iowa
to
the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm not
sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
perhaps not
very interesting scenery-wise.

A bit like the interior of your head.

Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
uncontrolled airspace.-



Fair assumption


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 14, 7:56 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in
oglegroups.com...





On Apr 13, 4:19 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gene Seibel writes:
Here in the Midwest where terrain is 500 to 1000 feet, I generally
fly
at 3500 or 4500 feet depending on direction of travel. I will go
down
to 1500 or up to 9500 if it brings a significant increase in ground
speed. I may also change altitude even if it means sacrificing some
groundspeed if it gets too bumpy at the altitude I'm flying. I tend
to
fly a little higher at night.

From what I've read, it should be possible to fly from one corner of
Iowa
to
the other without ever changing altitude by more than 1000 feet. I'm
not
sure
whether that's a good or bad thing. I suppose it's very safe, but
perhaps not
very interesting scenery-wise.

A bit like the interior of your head.

Simular, but I think it is safe to assume his head has a lot more
uncontrolled airspace.-



Fair assumption


Bertie


Oh my god...how could you even start to believe this maxi?

Confused...but I'm sure you are *not*.

LP

On Apr 12, 10:17 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Nobody said anything about dropping out of the sky. But at 5000 feet, the
lower levels of oxygen do indeed have an effect on neurological function.

Yes, but the effect of 5000' above sea level depends on where you
live ;-)

For example, I lived in Denver for years at over 5000'. Your body
becomes acclimated.

(Which is why Olympics training is done in nearby Colorado Springs.
When I moved back down to sea level, I could lift sofas with one hand
for about a week.)

Kev

I've done it without.

mike

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Try some night flying with and without.

You first.