![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Unfortunately, some B airspaces seem to be much more complex, and looking on the chart I can't figure out where they start and end. Generically speaking: If you look closely, you'll see multiple rings from several airports, so the overall airspace area might not be round, but it will be made up of intersecting circles. In that case, you'd use several navaids, and continually establish your position. Going around the space, I'll often pick one or two easy to use points outside the space and fly to them, safely taking me around the space. Remember, you only care about the boundry you're near. G For example, look at the terminal chart for KLAX. Some of the class B boundaries are marked, such as SMO 252° or VNY 220° at the western extremity. But then there's a northern border that isn't marked at all. I see water, a building, and Griffith Park observatory nearby, but that's it. I don't have that chart, but I's simply give a bit of extra cushion, or get clearance. Yes, I could plan carefully in advance. But then, if anything changes my route, all the planning goes out the window, and I'm back to looking at the chart. All addressed in training and ongoing practice. G Maybe. I suppose if you can pick and choose your route, you can find one with lots of landmarks to use. But can you do that when you are working towards a license? Not only "can you", but you must! G Training cross countries are chosen, planned and flown by the student. If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near. If you are flying through a VFR corridor that requires no ATC contact (see the KSAN terminal chart, which has such a corridor and explicitly says that no contact is required), do you routinely talk to ATC, anyway? If I'm obviously clear, no, but I usually will monitor them. I use flight following as often as I can when flying VFR, so I'm usually on with SOMEBODY. In this example case "somebody" would usually be "them". If I'm flying a dedicated VFR corridor, there's really no reason to bother ATC. Since VFR corridors are in very busy airspace, the controllers are going to be busy enough without me. G What do you request from them? Whatever I need, depending on the situation at hand. I take pride and put a lot of thought and effort into my ATC contacts, so I'm rarely denied. In fact, I can't remember my last ATC request that was denied, and I deal with the NY & BOS folks often. If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by. If there is space to do that. With proper planning, there's ALWAYS space, or you don't do it. G Remember, ALTITUDE is a very accurate tool to clear airspace. If you're over or under a certain airspace, the horizontal component of your location gains a bit of wiggle room. Thorough pre-planning, including what-ifs and alternate routes and airports, make it all go well and usually make in-flight decisions easy. "Kicking the tires and lighting the fires" can drastically increase in-flight workload. Experience and training teaches a good pilot what degree of planning is necessary for the particular flight at hand. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
B A R R Y writes: It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls with old charts... Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do you regularly replace as they expire? They range ~ $4 to $8. I average ~ $15/mo on charts and documentation. I use government stuff, not the more expensive, value added aftermarket information. I subscribe to VFR sectionals, WAC, IFR charts, and plates for the northeastern USA. Avshop / Leftse.at mails me books and charts as new versions are published. If I'm leaving the area of my typical coverage, I'll get the correct stuff at the time I need it. We keep our GPS 196 updated, so frequencies and other data are easily available in-flight from the unit. Some items, like AF/D's and instrument stuff expire every 56 days, but they're in the ~$4 range. VFR Sectionals are good for around 6 months and cost around $8. A VFR pilot really only "needs" current sectionals, and an AF/D for the area(s) he or she is flying in. They barely need that if they're just doing sightseeing hops around the local area. I usually give my expired stuff to students, kids, and other interested parties. A kid in my neighborhood literally WORE OUT an old chart I gave him, carrying it around and reading it. He can now quiz me on IFR chart symbols. G I think we have a duty to pass along our passions. I'll never be a test pilot or an astronaut, but you never know about him... G |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BT wrote:
You call up flight service 5 days before your flight and give them your flight plan, then on the day you fly your planned course is drawn on the ground for you to follow, danger areas on either side are highlighted with red boundries painted on the ground. You think that's funny? I had a neighbor (who knows I'm a techie) ask me if the yellow first down line on televised NFL games distracts the players. I couldn't make that up! |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: B A R R Y writes: He's being sarcastic. I hope... G OK The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry. Sending aircraft up for interception must be an incredibly expensive exercise (easily a million dollars a pop, I'd guess), so I should hope so. Actually, in practice, I believe they send helicopters up first. Much cheaper. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how good your vision is in real life). If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement? You were the one that indicated that there aren't very many landmarks, even though in real life there are, so this statement contradicts your other posts. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Judah writes: Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light? By looking out the window. I don't search for traffic lights or guardrails on a map. If I did, I'd be tumbling down a mountainside in no time. But if you are driving somewhere you haven't been before, you might have a map and use it to navigate to your destination, right? Does this cause you to tumble down the mountainside? See above. It is done routinely. Additionally, full-motion simulators use collimated projections that place everything at optical infinity, and they work very well indeed, even though there is no depth perception at all. There are many monocular cues to depth perception that are not effectively simulated. It's required if the chart doesn't tell you at a glance how to determine the boundaries of the airspace. No it isn't. And certainly there is no harm in leaving yourself a bit of lattitude if you don't have tools to do it with exacting precision. Except when you have forbidden areas threatening on both sides. And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis, and even before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't. I wonder if the advent of moving-map navigation aids has made pilots more prone to fly closely between and around controlled airspaces. Certainly it seems like a practical advantage of such devices, provided that they don't fail. I use an EHSI to fly patterns in the sim, but that is mainly because it's so hard to look out the side windows (I hope--at least I hope that visibility is a _lot_ better in a real aircraft). Visibility out the side windows in real life is pretty good. I haven't played with MSFS since the 98 version, but back then the default perspective out the window in a Cessna was SIGNIFICANTLY different and more restrictive than in the real world. I had to make several adjustments to the settings that control the angle of perspective, and I had to reduce the size of the control panel to even come close. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs. MOAs are not restrictive in nature. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... TxSrv writes: This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do. First someone tells me that a real plane is easier than MSFS, then I'm told that flying MSFS would not make me able to fly a real plane. These statements cannot be simultaneously true. Sure they can if they are two different skill sets. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kev" wrote in message ups.com... Gig 601XL Builder wrote: While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas. Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly let them see their house! And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish etc. I'm sure there are all sorts of things you can buy that will make MSFS more realistic but right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of aluminum in my hanger ready for flight. And I said MSFS not MSFS and add-ons. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Mxsmanic wrote: Robert M. Gary writes: I looked up "chart plotter" on Google, but I don't seem to be finding any mechanical devices, just software for PCs and the like. I believe the type you are looking for is a "sectional plotter". A sectional is a type of chart. The plotter is mated to the chart by the scale of its ruler. I also have plotters for low-alt enroute charts. What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule. Slide rules are way old school. The Wizwheel is the moden version of the slide rule. When I was in D.C. at the Air and Space museum they had a WWII pilot's Wizwheel. It was way more complicated than ours in that it had calculations for dropping bombs. I want to say there were 2 or 3 wheels on it. I guess one guy in a cockpit flighting and dropping bombs needs a pretty compact computer. -Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
chart heads-up | Jose | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | September 29th 06 07:25 PM |
Sectional Chart Question | Teranews | Piloting | 27 | June 23rd 05 12:14 AM |
WAC Chart Images on line? | Rich | Owning | 5 | March 22nd 04 11:17 PM |