Have you ever...

As for getting rid of VOR training/testing, I think it's silly,
and I don't even have a PPL!!! I know flight sims aren't 100%
accurate but I have no trouble using VOR's in MSFS.

Using VORs is pretty stone simple. The discussion is what can be eliminated
from the Private written exam (or, if you want to bring it up, the Oral and
Flight portions, for that matter) to bring the test up to date, and to make
flying more accessible.

VORs are just a starting point in this conversation. There are at least
half a dozen other things that (IMHO) could be cut or minimized on the
written exam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:48:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
PGA7e.14356$xL4.13659@attbi_s72::

If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd
suddenly
awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is
it
doing on the written exam for Private Pilot?

Suppose you are navigating solely by GPS. What are you going to do in
the event the military chooses to disable the GPS system while you're
airborne (or a solar storm renders GPS unusable) and you find yourself
above an undercast? If the aircraft isn't equipped with ADF, and you
haven't been trained to use VOR navigation, you'd have to request a DF
steer from FSS, or if you're located in an area of ATC radar coverage,
vectors.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:07:50 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote in
::

I think you just answered your own question, Larry.

In the Los Angeles area, pilots often fly over the vast Mojave Desert
enroute to their destinations. My experience has shown that ARTCC
radar coverage is limited below 8,000' over the Mojave, so radar
vectors may not be available. I have no idea of the coverage provided
by FSS for DF help.

Them's the same
actions I'd take if I was on top and the VOR went and packed up,

You wouldn't just fish your handheld GPS receiver out of your flight
bag, and continue on?

so how is a GPS packing up any different?

If you are an airman trained in VOR navigation, you don't need to rely
on radar nor DF for backup navigation while finding your way with GPS.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
agonline.com...
Upgrade the entire fleet, and I might be taking your side of the argument
(actually, it would be moot {8^).

Actually, I believe that the FAA could probably upgrade every plane in the
US with a GPS for what it spends in yearly VOR maintenance and operation...

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow airspeed
that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.

Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...

This is one of the things that really burned me up about the closing of
Meigs (KCGX - Chicago, IL)...

When I was a kid, my dad, who was a WWII fighter pilot, used to frequently
take me out to the old Raleigh (NC) Municipal Airport on Saturday and Sunday
afternoons.

We could walk up and down the flight line, talking to the pilots, and there
were a couple of mostly parted out planes over by one of the FBO's where
they would allow me to sit in the cockpit and dream my six-year-old dreams.

And the airplanes! None of today's wall-to-wall 172's and Warriors; if it
had ever flown, you could probably find on tied down at Raleigh Muni.

Now flash back to Meigs...

As a matter of hard-core practicality, Meigs generated revenue for the city.
Now, they are turning it into what is known as a "natural prairie" park,
which, with apologies to the tree-huggers amongst us, is nothing more than a
weed-covered vacant lot.

Of course, Chicago is faced with the same revenue shortfalls as is every
other city, so they've decided to scrape up a few bucks by leasing a part of
their "nature park" to Clear Channel, so they can stage rock concerts there.

But consider this: what if Mayor Daley had not destroyed Meigs?

What if he had spent (probably less than) $50,000 to put a few nice picnic
tables just outside the fence at Meigs so people could sit out there and
watch the planes taking off and landing? He could have even put up a few of
the overpriced concession stands that we have in all of the parks and
brought in a little more revenue.

And I imagine the mayor could have found one of his wealthy supporters to
donate a worn out 152 (or similar) that could be permanently set up over by
the picnic area. Cut the wings back to stubs (to save space), remove the
engine and install a dummy prop, remove the doors, and let the kids enjoy
the same fantasies I was able to do as a kid.

How many new pilots do you think would have come out of that?

And please don't label me a liberal do-gooder, but keep in mind that Meigs
was centrally located and very accessible to everyone in the city. How many
inner-city black and Hispanic kids do you think will ever see a light
airplane anywhere other than in the movies.

How many lights do you think would have been lit behind those little brown
eyes if they could still see and touch a real airplane at Meigs?

But Meigs is gone; probably forever. I have heard that the "Friends of
Meigs" have been pushing a plan to rebuild the airport, but for that to
happen, Daley would have to admit he screwed up (like the evidence isn't all
around those of us who live in Chicago), and that ain't about to happen.

So tonight, thousands of little heads will hit pillows in our city, with the
little kids dreaming their dreams of owning Glocks or Uzis, instead of
dreaming of owning a 172 or a Warrior.

And while they will have a park full of weeds to play in, somehow I don't
think we will be the better for all of this...






"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:z888e.19937$GJ.13008@attbi_s71...
The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take
the
test.

I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.

That's just crap.

Walk into your airport today, Larry, with the eyes of a newbie. Try to
imagine knowing NOTHING about flying, and trying to get your foot in the
door. Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by
standing
in your airport terminal building.

It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.

In fact, it's so intimidating that people don't even consider the fact
that
they MIGHT be able to fly, let alone wonder who to speak with about it.
It's a terrible situation.

Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started. We've made airports
so
inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of priesthood, where
you
must be inducted into it by the Elders.

We're not Jedi Knights. While I love the thought that what I do is
special,
and that I've got knowledge that very few others have, we've simply got to
get past this ego thing if general aviation is to survive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:40:17 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
5vP7e.16612$xL4.10899@attbi_s72::

Grumman-581 wrote:
Hilton wrote:
A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow
airspeed
that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.

Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...

Yeah, but I don't think anyone was flying the AA1 in the 30s (see rest of
the thread).

Was the AA1 the one in the NASA video when the test pilot goes through all
the options, then pops the chute? That is a great video.

Hilton

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:09:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in z888e.19937$GJ.13008@attbi_s71::

The "failed pilots" we should be concerned about are the ones who fail
because they are so intimidated by the process that they never even take
the
test.

I would prefer not to share the sky with those individuals, thanks.

That's just crap.

It's difficult to argue with sagacious logic such as that. :-)

Walk into your airport today, Larry, with the eyes of a newbie. Try to
imagine knowing NOTHING about flying, and trying to get your foot in the
door. Imagine trying to know Step One to learning to fly, just by standing
in your airport terminal building.

The terminal building at the airport from which I fly is strictly for
airline passengers; it has nothing to do with flight instruction.

If someone is passionate enough about flight, they find the way to a
certificate. If they are not passionate enough about flight or
intelligent enough to look for a flight school in the Yellow Pages, or
find the flight instruction too intimidating, they probably belong on
the ground.

It's intimidating as hell, even at most uncontrolled fields. At a Class C
airport, you might as well be trying to break into Area 51.

I have no idea what makes you say that. It certainly hasn't been my
experience. What do you find so intimidating?

In fact, it's so intimidating that people don't even consider the fact that
they MIGHT be able to fly, let alone wonder who to speak with about it.
It's a terrible situation.

You'd have to provide some specific personal experiences that bolster
that argument before I'd buy it. Otherwise it smacks of a straw man
argument to me.

Without a mentor, most new pilots never get started.

I believe it's safe to assume that _significantly_ less than 50% of
currently certificated airmen were mentored. Certainly, I had no
mentor other than my CFI. Where do you get these ideas?

We've made airports so inaccessible that flying has become like some sort of
priesthood, where you must be inducted into it by the Elders.

Commencing flight instruction is a matter of telephoning a flight
school, and making an appointment for an introductory flight. How
would you make it simpler?

While flight may be a "religious" experience, it certainly has nothing
to with metaphysics nor voodoo cults. Flight is all about physics,
mathematics, responsibility, judgment, and three dimensional reality,
not irrationality.

We're not Jedi Knights.

Well, I happy to hear we got that cleared up. :-)

While I love the thought that what I do is special,
and that I've got knowledge that very few others have, we've simply got to
get past this ego thing if general aviation is to survive.

General Aviation will survive despite what is done by you and me or
the government. You can't keep a good airman down. :-)

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article ,
Skywise wrote:

There are GPS jammers, but their effectiveness is disputed.

by who?

Supposedly the Russians and supposedly some used against
US operations in Afghanistan.



Due to the tight control of GPS by the US gov, the Europeans
are develping their own system called GALILEO which will use
the same base frequency (L1) as the NAVSTAR which means most
consumer level GPS units will be compatible. Once this is
available, the idea of the US Gov 'turning off' GPS is moot.

Moot? Hardly. You think Galileo couldn't be jammed?

Sure it could. But it would take a lot of effort to jam
anything more than a localized region. It's not like someone
sitting in some secret bunker somewhere can fire up their
Acme GPS Super Jammer and knock out the whole affair.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...

Way back in the 30s, some pilots would spin through an overcast and then
recover underneath in the clear. Unless the ceiling was 200', that is.
Can you imagine? Open cockpit, rain spraying you and there you go into an
intentional spin into the merk. Must have had huge balls and tiny
brains....


Edgar Bergen was a cousin once removed. I feel like I am talking to a
member of the family!

Actually those pilots did indeed have a lot of courage, but certainly NOT
tiny brains. Just the opposite.

Remember, they did NOT have gyro instruments. While it is possible, if you
are EXTREMELY careful, to make in instrument letdown through an overcast
with only a magnetic compass, a steady foot, good trim and courage it is a
lot easier to put the airplane in a stable condition that will lose altitude
quickly. Most of those airplanes would pop out of a spin in a quarter turn
or less and lose no more than two or three hundred feet while doing it. A
spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin. Most
of those early airplanes would lose less than 400 feet per turn and the
airspeed would never get over about 90 mph while in a spin. An inadvertent
spiral is the most likely outcome from trying to fly instruments without any
and that will allow the airspeed to build up well over Vne. If you attempt
to jerk the airplane out of a high speed spiral when you see ground rapidly
approaching you will probably pull the wings off. Prompt recovery from a
spin will leave you wings level and only slightly faster than normal cruise
airspeed allowing you to find a field and put the darn thing down.

Compared to the available alternatives at the time, spinning through the
overcast was actually one of the safest options available and actually
pretty hard to mess up by sloppy piloting. :-)

Letting down with only a magnetic compass is a LOT trickier, albeit
possible. Do not practice this alone or in a real overcast! In the
northern hemisphere turn to a heading of 180 degrees. Trim the airplane for
best glide speed and adjust the throttle for a descent rate not to exceed
500 fpm with 300 probably somewhat safer. Remove you hands from the
controls and SIT ON THEM. :-) Carefully, using you feet, nudge the magnetic
compass back to the big "S" whenever it begins to stray out of the window.
Nudge it gently because it is wiggly as all get out. If your airspeed
remains constant, taken care of with the trim only, and you heading does not
change, you must be flying straight. If you fly straight and continue a
steady and reasonable descent you will descend in a straight course and
eventually wind up below the overcast with a controllable descent rate. Of
course, if the hilltops extend up into the clouds you may fly into something
hard and unyielding before you see the ground below you.

Both of these techniques do work. I can attest to that personally, because
if they had not, I wouldn't be writing this today. I do not recommend these
if you have gyros available. However, I have been trapped where I had to
make an "instrument" letdown or climbout when flying in an antique airplane
that had no electrical system and no gyros of any kind. Not fun, not real
safe, but certainly doable by a properly trained pilot.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

I always found it interesting that the FAA didn't certify airplanes that
were unsafe to spin until they decided that spins were unsafe to teach! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news:y898e.18881$xL4.13426@attbi_s72...
"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
A spin is a perfectly safe and controlled maneuver at a very slow
airspeed
that puts very managable forces on the plane - remember, it is stalled.

Not so safe in an AA1 if you don't have a spin recovery parachute...