![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thomas Borchert writes:
You're going at this the wrong way. In flight, what you do is simply look at the chart, find some ground features close to the border line of the airspace, look out the window, find the same ground features - and presto, you know where you are in relation to the airspace. But that's just it: There are few ground features shown on the chart. In some cases, a charted feature is near the border of the airspace, but in many cases there is nothing along the border. Even with landmarks, the best you can do is estimate. I suppose one can argue that the differences among certain types of airspace aren't that great, and a ballpark estimate will do. But if they aren't that important, why bother to chart them? It's all a strong argument for moving-map GPS systems, but one shouldn't have to depend on those. For IFR flight, airspace doesn't matter much, since the controller will do everything necessary for you. Yes, but this is a chart intended for VFR. Also, many circular airspaces are centered around a VOR-DME, so there's another help. That does seem to be the case fairly often for Class B airspace, and as long as it's a moderately regular layer cake, you can find out where you are. I notice that some boundaries are clearly marked as being on a particular radial or at a particular distance. Others are marked as coincident with a feature such as a road, although how one is supposed to recognize one road among others is not explained (in the Phoenix TAC that I'm looking at, the entire area is crisscrossed with a grid of streets; I'm not sure how I'd distinguish Camelback Road from the other nearly identical streets to the north and south of it. Figuring the radius (which is normally standardized for certain types of airspace) is pretty easy, since the scale of a sectional is the same every time and you have a ruler. If I can take my hands off the controls and turn to my chart to measure it, that is. The logic for class E lower limits is in IFR traffic being in it. Class E means higher visibility requirements for VFR, so they can separate themselves from IFR traffic. I guess that makes sense--although it seems that essentially everything is Class E, anyway. It sounds like this was not always so. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|