WAC vs Sectional

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.

True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
so much nicer to deal with.

In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

In the past, we would carry sectionals for reference, but use WACs for
planning and in-flight use. Now, with the airport identifiers being added
to them, the sectionals will become superfluous.

I'll stay with sectionals. I want the radio frequency info.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

I'd say more important is the altitude at which one flies. Low to the
ground, even with a zillion hours, a WAC is next to useless. Up where you
need oxygen, sectionals may lose their appeal.


True. But on a long cross country, even in the middle altitudes, WACs are
so much nicer to deal with.

I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at
five hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it
there.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at five
hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it there.

What're you flying, Jose?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What're you flying, Jose?

A Dakota.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

What're you flying, Jose?

A Dakota.

You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?

I like to. But it's usually more like 1000. There are many more
towers now than there used to be, and the East coast is more dense
than the Mojave desert. (I used to fly up and down the desert like
that twenty years ago before there =were= cell phones - I probably
picked up an extra ten or twenty knots just from pitching down into
the rising heated air.)

I plan the flight very carefully, checking the sectional for towers
(knowing they aren't all there), for airports and frequencies,
terrain, parachute drop zones, and anything else that might be
significant that low. It's all written out in a log ahead of time,
plotted on the sectional, obstacles circled (they make good landmarks
actually), quadrant minimum altitudes logged, and I make sure I have
good visibility to do it in, and a high enough ceiling to climb if I
need to.

Planning a long flight like that can take as long as actually flying
it - there's a lot I can ignore at 8000 feet that is critical on the
deck. To do it without detailled planning like that, in low viz,
under scud, is suicide. But on a nice day with careful planning, it
is not only (relatively) safe, it is excellent XC practice. I have
the GPS on in case I need it, but turned to a text page so I don't
cheat. At that altitude you can't see the whole world below you, so
you'd better hold a good course, pick good landmarks, be on top of
your timing, and pay attention.

Try it. Practice it. It may save your butt one day.

Have you calculated your glide range from 500 feet?

The fan stops, yes, I have fewer options. Of course, it's much safer
to fly as a passenger in a jetliner. We fly little airplanes because
the joy of flight is worth the risk. There are tradeoffs all over
aviation.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
You fly a Dakota, cross-country, at 500 feet?


I like to. But it's usually more like 1000. There are many more towers
now than there used to be, and the East coast is more dense than the
Mojave desert. (I used to fly up and down the desert like that twenty
years ago before there =were= cell phones - I probably picked up an
extra ten or twenty knots just from pitching down into the rising heated
air.)

And where did that rising heated air come from? If you were flying in a
straight line, then you likely aren't netting any gain from thermals as
you also are flying through the corresponding downdrafts.

Matt

And I thought I was the only one that did that (500 ft AGL, that is)!!!

Jose wrote:
I guess you don't fly low cross countries. I like to go CT to FL at
five hundred feet. A thousand over some parts. A WAC won't cut it
there.

And I thought I was the only one that did that (500 ft AGL, that is)!!!

The view is awesome, especially in fall, over rolling hills. But keep
a sharp eye for cell towers!

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.