Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Bob Moore wrote:

Pilots are not required to have previous entries into an airport.


Brings me around to asking what I wanted to for a while now... what on
earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
doesn't?

If we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, it must be a
breeze from the air, what?

Ramapriya

Brings me around to asking what I wanted to for a while now... what on
earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
doesn't?

If we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, it must be a
breeze from the air, what?

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.

Sure, we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, but it's a
lot easier going somewhere when you're familiar with the area. You
recognize stuff in real life that isn't even on the maps. Sometimes the
squiggles on the maps make things look important that aren't, and look
unimportant that are. You can probably make your way home blindfolded,
but haven't you ever been creeping along at night in the rain looking
for 35th Avenue (it's between 34th Avenue and Sedona Place, but 34th
Avenue is off at some cockeyed angle and the street sign is missing,
there's traffic behind you and you think you just missed Sedona, or was
that Sequoia... and yes, the windshield wiper blade should have been
changed the last time it rained.

As for navigating the roads by air, ever tried it? You can't see the
street signs, you often can't see the streets for the trees (unless you
live in the desert); everything looks different. It can be done; I've
done it, and it's kind of fun, but it's not the cinch you make it out to be.

When you are familiar with an airport, you know where to go by many many
cues (shapes of buildings, light patterns, the pond on the left, the
runup area that's white concrete instead of black tarmac...) these
things are not shown on approach plates.

A real look counts for a lot.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.





As for navigating the roads by air, ever tried it? You can't see the
street signs, you often can't see the streets for the trees (unless you
live in the desert); everything looks different. It can be done; I've
done it, and it's kind of fun, but it's not the cinch you make it out to be.

When you are familiar with an airport, you know where to go by many many
cues (shapes of buildings, light patterns, the pond on the left, the
runup area that's white concrete instead of black tarmac...) these
things are not shown on approach plates.

A real look counts for a lot.


Very nicely written. Makes me feel that flying into a familiar airport
just adds an extra layer to the pilot's situational awareness, when not
in IFR or VMC. Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

Not trying to be derogatory here, but won't flying into an unfamiliar
airport ensure that you check and double-check everything? )

Thanks again Jose,

Ramapriya

Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

If we know the airport, that's the way we do it. You do too. When
you're driving in a familiar area, how do you navigate? You remember
the red building on the corner, the curve in the road, the place where
they did some construction not quite right... A lot of us (private
pilots) fly =completely= visually, using cues from lakes and light
patterns (and correlating them with the charts), and not using GPS or
gizmos at all.

but won't flying into an unfamiliar
airport ensure that you check and double-check everything?

Well, yes, sort of. At any airport, familiar or not, we check
everything (even familiar ones can change radio frequencies or close
runways). It's just that with the familiar airports, we get more
chances to do that, from more sources (like having been there just
yesterday). Personally I have a form I fill out with pertinent airport
information (frequencies, runway orientations, FBOs) and at the bigger
ones, I pull out a taxi chart too. It's a bit embarrasing to key the
mike and say "N3423 Juliet on the forty five for runway... um.. er, sort
of the northbound one". I just look down and see that the choices are
8/26 and 17/35, so the "sort of northbound one" would be 35. After
landing, I'll need to know where to taxi to, and one FBO can be MUCH
more expensive than the other one. Ask me how I found out! Much better
to know which one you want, and where it is. (and if you think I'll
remember after a five hour flight, well, my choir director would say
"elephants have memories, people have pencils". He was right.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

Just one little addendum; coming back from Block Island there was this
bright line of lights which I couldn't identify. It looked like the top
of a skyscraper, if that skyscraper were a mile wide. It could have
been a road, but it was lit up far too brightly and would be a very
short road. It was visible for half a hundred miles.

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).
The lights in question were probably the lights for the parking area
in front of the FBO. Now I've filed that little tidbit away. It makes
OXC much easier to find at night! (assuming those lights are on, which
one can't count on).

The guy coming in for the first time won't know this. He'll be looking
for the green and white airport beacon. He'll find it, but not from
fifty miles away.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

Ramapriya

wrote in message
oups.com...
Jose wrote:

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

Ramapriya


Generally, they are.

In urban areas, they tend to be black-ish holes in the lighting landscape.

Out here in Arizona, they tend to stand out a little bit better because the
urban lighting isn't very dense and because we CAN see airport beacons from
fifty miles away.

Jay B

wrote:

And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

While they tend to be, there are exceptions. The Buffalo, NY, airport's
beacon is almost impossible to see at night, at least when coming in from
the east. Instead, I look for the large passenger terminal parking
structure that has more white lights on it than a Christmas tree.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

While they tend to be, there are exceptions. The Buffalo, NY, airport's
beacon is almost impossible to see at night, at least when coming in from
the east.

HFD is similar from certain directions and altitudes. The beacon gets
totally lost in Hartford's city lights, and the nearby interstate
highways and bridges make it hard to make out shapes of runways.

wrote in message


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

When viewed from above, they usually are. But you almost never view the
airport from above, particularly when you're first looking for it. The
angle of view is often 10 degrees or less, and if the airport is near any
sort of built-up area, the rotating beacon can easily get lost in the
ambient lights.