Have you ever...

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 8388e.18726$xL4.8356@attbi_s72::

I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
result in increased safety not numbers.

I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the
safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions.

Perhaps GPS navigation would be an appropriate additional topic for
inclusion in the airman Private written examination. :-)

With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.

On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking
about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge.

Where is the term "optional knowledge" defined? Is everything beyond
airspeed, compass and ball optional in your opinion? Where does the
boundary between 'optional' and 'essential' lie, in your opinion?

To fly, all you really need is a sectional map and a compass -- and
I know guys who fly safely without *those*.

Oh, like the Air Tractor pilot killed in the MAC with a military
training flight recently? :-)

Where do they do that? Certainly not over sprawling urban areas in
marginal visibility. It's beginning to sound like your frame of
reference is the sparely populated plains.

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations. The same is true of transition through KLAX Class B
airspace on the charted transition routes. VOR navigating is
required.

Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep
it exclusive?

In the '70s, Cessna, Piper and Beech tried the Country Club marketing
approach to flight instruction and aircraft rental. Their advertising
showed nattily attired upscale 30-something socializing at the FBO,
and generally attempted to shed the grease-stained hanger aspect of
aviation. Today you can see the results of that not insubstantial
effort: nil. It seems, that most folks interested in piloting
aircraft possess courage, desire, intelligence and means beyond the
norm. I have a hard time believing that Joe-sixpack will ever
dominate the ranks. Aviation isn't elitist by design; it's a natural
result of human nature. In its current state, aviation isn't for
everyone. Technology may change that, and when that occurs, easing
airman's testing requirements may be appropriate.

Today, dumbing-down the training criteria to attract the unqualified
seems like a step in the wrong direction destined to fail in an
unpleasant way. The NTSB has announced, that 2004 was general
aviation's safest year yet. I fail to see how eliminating material
from the airman's training curricula will positively impact aviation
safety.

I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.

Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by
others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise?
A US President once said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Given the fact, that aviation is expected to double or tipple in the
not too distant future, I find a fear of dwindling ranks of airmen
suspicious if not unfounded.

And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys?
Airport funding?

If the number of active airmen fails to decline due to baby-boomers
failing medical requirements, and safety suffers as a result of
dumbing-down the airman's examination requirements, what do you think
will be the reaction of the regulators and the public? Your
suggestion could as easily backfire as succeed.

We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every
14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse.

The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
developers, not a dearth of pilots.

We need more pilots.

Perhaps, but you have failed to convince me of that allegation, and I
oppose your approach to achieving it. If you want more pilots, you
need to reduce the cost of aviation, not compromise safety.

Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

It will at least provide some tangible statistics.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations.

How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?

- Andrew

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:48:00 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ne.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations.

How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?

- Andrew


Yes. You are correct. I should have been more specific.

KLAX has a Special Flight Rules Corridor through the Class B airspace
at 3,500' and 4,500' that only requires squawking 1201 and . Part of
the requirements for use are tracking the SMO VOR 132 degree radial
and having a current VFR Terminal chart in the aircraft. The other
charted transition routs also require use of VOR radials. Although
the Shoreline transition does not; although charted, it has been
effectively rescinded.

So, yes, it is operating above the 10,000' ceiling of the KLAX Class B
airspace without tracking a radial is within regulations.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

Snipola
The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
developers, not a dearth of pilots.
Snipola

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

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?

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.

But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
currency with frequent flights.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.

But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
currency with frequent flights.

Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
basis to keep up the hours.

Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.

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?

I will second the weather stuff. I use AOPA's weather for flight planning. I
have never seen, and will never see any of the arcane weather maps that the
FAA uses in their tests. These maps exist in only in the FSS which I as a
private citizen and pilot can't visit without a background check and several
day advanced arangments.
I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in FA,
TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary since
we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.

But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
currency with frequent flights.

Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
basis to keep up the hours.

Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.

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?

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:05:26 GMT, "faky" wrote:

I will second the weather stuff. I use AOPA's weather for flight planning. I
have never seen, and will never see any of the arcane weather maps that the
FAA uses in their tests. These maps exist in only in the FSS which I as a
private citizen and pilot can't visit without a background check and several
day advanced arangments.
I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in FA,
TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary since
we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.

That's something that could be easily remedied but getting change in a
government bureaucracy takes eons.


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:16:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

The only thing that's prevented me from going for a license
is the cost. I have been interested in learning to fly since
at least the late 80's but have never had enough spare cash.

I would expect that to be the number one barrier to holding an
airman's certificate among those who are otherwise qualified.

But piloting is costlier than what you probably expect. Finding the
means to complete airman training only opens the door. Once
certificated, you're interminably committed to the cost of maintaining
currency with frequent flights.

Exactly. At one time I had enough saved to get through
school but I didn't have enough spare cash on a regular
basis to keep up the hours.

Heck, now, I can't do anything extra, even my small hobbies.

If you want it bad enough you'll do it!

First, before anything else you have to make your mind up that you are
going to become a pilot. Of course you have to have the health as
well and stay out of trouble.

Far too many just convince themselves it costs too much and they'll
never afford it, or they don't have enough to go all the way to a
license now so why bother? They'll wait until they can afford to do
the whole thing. There are many excuses for not flying *now*, but
most are just excuses. So what if you can only afford to take five or
10 lessons now? Do you want to do it or not? Sure it's cheaper in
the long run to do the whole thing at once and it takes fewer hours,
but it means you aren't flying at all.

When I was much younger I had enough money to start my training, but a
wife, two kids, and a new home in the country put a stop to that in
1963. I did fly three or four times in the intervening years, but it
was 1987 before I actually got back into flying. Then I had enough
saved up to take lessons and it only took about 6 months or a bit
less to earn my ticket and I did it while going to college full time
as well.

Yes, I know, the times don't add up until you realize I was 47 when I
quit work and went back to college full time. I earned a BS in
Computer Science with minors in Art and Math. Then started on my
Masters with a Graduate Assistantship.

If you think time is short, try fitting in flying while spending
nearly 8 hours at school and at least 8 more a day logged into the
school computer, or on your own, programming. as well as studying your
other classes.

Once you make your mind up, then develop a plan.
The main reason I didn't fly much during those intervening years was
the long drive to the airport, but if I'd had more drive (no pun
intended) I'd have done it.

So what if you can only afford to take a lesson once a month. Sure,
you aren't likely to solo at that rate, but you are learning and "you
are flying". Even if it's only once or twice a year to give yourself
a treat, you are "still flying".

Prior to quitting work to go to college full time I was carrying about
a half load at a two year college. I was taking courses that
interested me. When I went back full time I had 113 credit hours of
which only 17 counted. The point is, I had been learning and enjoying
the courses even if they didn't count. I went to college because I
wanted to do so, not because I had to.

As I said earlier, once you make your mind up that you are going to
learn to fly you are past the hardest of the hurdles. Sure, money and
time are issues for most of us, but making your mind up is number one!

Not enough money? Why? Can you remedy it? Certainly if you are
willing to commit yourself. It may take years to do so. Step number
one is get out of debt if you are in debt. Budget yourself and family
and organize time to minimize costs and trips. Job doesn't pay well?
Why not? Not enough education? Why not? Get the education and get
the job. Generally you have to expect to change locations when you
change jobs. As hard hit as the computer industry has been and with
so many out of work there are still jobs going begging and being
filled by "green cards" because the company couldn't find workers here
to take the jobs. Supporting a family and trying to make ends meet
with a low paying job? Start taking classes to qualify for a better
paying job.

There are more reasons people stay in low paying jobs than there are
reasons for those who don't fly .

It might take 20 years to get to the point of being able to take on
lessons with the expectation of flying regularly to finish up. It took
me 34! Still the occasional flight is worth it.

Flying does not have to be a rich person's sport and I would say that
half of the pilots at our airport are no more than average income with
some quite a bit less than average. Some fly ultra lights, some are
going for the new sport aviation license, some join clubs, and some
build their own.

The cost of staying Legally current doesn't have to be high, but again
it takes planning, imagination, and a bit of foresight.

I know one guy locally who built a nice little two seater who knew
when he started that he'd never be able to get a license due to his
health. He's out and around, but unable to even maintain a job, but
he built an airplane from plans and did a nice job too.

I was divorced in 80 and so far in debt I thought I'd never get out.
I met my current wife of over 20 years a year or two after that. Got
married, worked hard, saved, planned, and 5 years later went back to
college. Graduated, got a good job, put every cent I could to work,
worked seven years and retired. I'm not wealthy, but my wife and I
can do pretty much what we choose within reason.
(The 75 foot yacht is definitely out of the question)



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
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?

Roger wrote in
:

Snipola of life story

Well, I'm not going to write a big story about my life
but just say the not being out of work for 18 months
doesn't let one do much of anything.

BTW, I have zero debt. Nada. Zilch.

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?

faky wrote:
I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in
FA,
TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary
since
we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.

I always get the raw format - I can look at a bunch of airports and within a
few seconds see where the good weather is, and where the bad weather is.

I love the raw format and proud to admit it.

Maybe it's just me, but I can read (from adds.aviationweather.gov):

KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250=

a whole lot faster than:


Forecast for: KSEA
Text: KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
Forecast period: 0600 to 1100 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the WSW (250 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 20000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 12000 feet AGL
broken clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
Forecast period: 1100 to 1300 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 6 MPH (5 knots; 2.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 600 feet AGL
scattered clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
Forecast period: 1300 to 1700 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 2.00 miles (3.22 km)
Ceiling: 600 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 600 feet AGL
Weather: BR (mist)

Text: FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
Forecast period: 1700 to 1900 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: variable direction winds at 5 MPH (4 knots; 2.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 1000 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250
Forecast period: 1900 UTC 21 April 2005 to 0600 UTC 22 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the NNW (340 degrees) at 7 MPH (6 knots; 3.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 25000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period


Don't try this at home with numerous airports...

Hilton