![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared direct. The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go so high when I don't need to. Not quite sure why the outage, since it happens right around the MEI airport who has approach controllers but it does. Terrain isn't a factor since it's flat as a board. Now, I probably could request 7000 for that short period of time when I expect out of radar contact, but by the time I climbed to 7000 feet the time gained in flying the lower altitude would be lost in the climb to 7000 feet. In other sectors, I have flown outside of radar coverage, but had to report when a certain distance of a VOR, but this particular sector doesn't work this way. Bottom line for "flight planning purpose" I am only out of the second pair of eyes for a very short duration of the flight. It was more efficient to select a lower altitude for passenger considerations and lose the second pair of eyes in a part of the trip where traffic is very minimal at best. So, I'd be willing to give up 20 minutes of non radar coverage for a more direct and quicker flight. If I was by myself, this all would have been a moot point as I would just fly the victor highways. Allen |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "A Lieberman" wrote in message ... The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go so high when I don't need to. Because it's the only way to get what you want. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "A Lieberman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared direct. The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go so high when I don't need to. It seems you need to. Not withstanding it is safer, cooler, smoother, and usually more efficient to be higher. Or, go IFR, and learn how to work with ATC better to get what you want. Karl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lyc. O-360 cylinder question | JB | Owning | 13 | November 27th 04 09:32 PM |
Handheld battery question | RobsSanta | General Aviation | 8 | September 19th 04 03:07 PM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Partnership Question | Harry Gordon | Owning | 4 | August 16th 03 11:23 PM |