How do you find the limits of areas on a chart?

Mxsmanic wrote:

Unfortunately, some B airspaces seem to be much more complex, and
looking on the chart I can't figure out where they start and end.

Generically speaking:

If you look closely, you'll see multiple rings from several airports, so
the overall airspace area might not be round, but it will be made up of
intersecting circles. In that case, you'd use several navaids, and
continually establish your position. Going around the space, I'll often
pick one or two easy to use points outside the space and fly to them,
safely taking me around the space.

Remember, you only care about the boundry you're near. G

For example, look at the terminal chart for KLAX. Some of the class B
boundaries are marked, such as SMO 252° or VNY 220° at the western
extremity. But then there's a northern border that isn't marked at
all. I see water, a building, and Griffith Park observatory nearby,
but that's it.

I don't have that chart, but I's simply give a bit of extra cushion, or
get clearance.

Yes, I could plan carefully in advance. But then, if anything changes
my route, all the planning goes out the window, and I'm back to
looking at the chart.

All addressed in training and ongoing practice. G


Maybe. I suppose if you can pick and choose your route, you can find
one with lots of landmarks to use. But can you do that when you are
working towards a license?

Not only "can you", but you must! G Training cross countries are
chosen, planned and flown by the student.


If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least
monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near.

If you are flying through a VFR corridor that requires no ATC contact
(see the KSAN terminal chart, which has such a corridor and explicitly
says that no contact is required), do you routinely talk to ATC,
anyway?

If I'm obviously clear, no, but I usually will monitor them. I use
flight following as often as I can when flying VFR, so I'm usually on
with SOMEBODY. In this example case "somebody" would usually be "them".
If I'm flying a dedicated VFR corridor, there's really no reason to
bother ATC. Since VFR corridors are in very busy airspace, the
controllers are going to be busy enough without me. G

What do you request from them?

Whatever I need, depending on the situation at hand. I take pride and
put a lot of thought and effort into my ATC contacts, so I'm rarely
denied. In fact, I can't remember my last ATC request that was denied,
and I deal with the NY & BOS folks often.


If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd
simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by.

If there is space to do that.

With proper planning, there's ALWAYS space, or you don't do it. G

Remember, ALTITUDE is a very accurate tool to clear airspace. If you're
over or under a certain airspace, the horizontal component of your
location gains a bit of wiggle room.

Thorough pre-planning, including what-ifs and alternate routes and
airports, make it all go well and usually make in-flight decisions easy.
"Kicking the tires and lighting the fires" can drastically increase
in-flight workload. Experience and training teaches a good pilot what
degree of planning is necessary for the particular flight at hand.

Mxsmanic wrote:
B A R R Y writes:

It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
with old charts...

Just out of curiosity, how much do new charts cost, and how many do
you regularly replace as they expire?

They range ~ $4 to $8. I average ~ $15/mo on charts and documentation.
I use government stuff, not the more expensive, value added
aftermarket information. I subscribe to VFR sectionals, WAC, IFR
charts, and plates for the northeastern USA. Avshop / Leftse.at mails
me books and charts as new versions are published. If I'm leaving the
area of my typical coverage, I'll get the correct stuff at the time I
need it.

We keep our GPS 196 updated, so frequencies and other data are easily
available in-flight from the unit.

Some items, like AF/D's and instrument stuff expire every 56 days, but
they're in the ~$4 range. VFR Sectionals are good for around 6 months
and cost around $8.

A VFR pilot really only "needs" current sectionals, and an AF/D for the
area(s) he or she is flying in. They barely need that if they're just
doing sightseeing hops around the local area.

I usually give my expired stuff to students, kids, and other interested
parties. A kid in my neighborhood literally WORE OUT an old chart I
gave him, carrying it around and reading it. He can now quiz me on IFR
chart symbols. G I think we have a duty to pass along our passions.
I'll never be a test pilot or an astronaut, but you never know about
him... G

BT wrote:

You call up flight service 5 days before your flight and give them your
flight plan, then on the day you fly your planned course is drawn on the
ground for you to follow, danger areas on either side are highlighted with
red boundries painted on the ground.

You think that's funny?

I had a neighbor (who knows I'm a techie) ask me if the yellow first
down line on televised NFL games distracts the players.

I couldn't make that up!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

B A R R Y writes:

He's being sarcastic. I hope... G

OK

The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.

Sending aircraft up for interception must be an incredibly expensive
exercise (easily a million dollars a pop, I'd guess), so I should hope
so.


Actually, in practice, I believe they send helicopters up first. Much
cheaper.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
good your vision is in real life).

If you've never seen the real thing, how can you make this statement?

You were the one that indicated that there aren't very many landmarks, even
though in real life there are, so this statement contradicts your other
posts.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?

By looking out the window. I don't search for traffic lights or
guardrails on a map. If I did, I'd be tumbling down a mountainside in
no time.

But if you are driving somewhere you haven't been before, you might have a
map and use it to navigate to your destination, right?

Does this cause you to tumble down the mountainside?

See above. It is done routinely. Additionally, full-motion
simulators use collimated projections that place everything at optical
infinity, and they work very well indeed, even though there is no
depth perception at all.

There are many monocular cues to depth perception that are not effectively
simulated.

It's required if the chart doesn't tell you at a glance how to
determine the boundaries of the airspace.

No it isn't.

And certainly there is no harm in leaving yourself a bit of lattitude
if you don't have tools to do it with exacting precision.

Except when you have forbidden areas threatening on both sides.

And yet somehow, miraculously, pilots do this on a regular basis, and even
before there was GPS! Perhaps we know something you don't.

I wonder if the advent of moving-map navigation aids has made pilots
more prone to fly closely between and around controlled airspaces.
Certainly it seems like a practical advantage of such devices,
provided that they don't fail.

I use an EHSI to fly patterns in the sim, but that is mainly because
it's so hard to look out the side windows (I hope--at least I hope
that visibility is a _lot_ better in a real aircraft).

Visibility out the side windows in real life is pretty good. I haven't
played with MSFS since the 98 version, but back then the default
perspective out the window in a Cessna was SIGNIFICANTLY different and more
restrictive than in the real world. I had to make several adjustments to
the settings that control the angle of perspective, and I had to reduce the
size of the control panel to even come close.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you
see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems
like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs.

MOAs are not restrictive in nature.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
TxSrv writes:

This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do.

First someone tells me that a real plane is easier than MSFS, then I'm
told that flying MSFS would not make me able to fly a real plane.
These statements cannot be simultaneously true.


Sure they can if they are two different skill sets.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban
areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.

Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
let them see their house!

And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
etc.


I'm sure there are all sorts of things you can buy that will make MSFS more
realistic but right now I'm spending ALL my extra cash getting that pile of
aluminum in my hanger ready for flight. And I said MSFS not MSFS and
add-ons.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
I looked up "chart plotter" on Google, but I don't seem to be finding
any mechanical devices, just software for PCs and the like.

I believe the type you are looking for is a "sectional plotter". A
sectional is a type of chart. The plotter is mated to the chart by the
scale of its ruler. I also have plotters for low-alt enroute charts.

What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.

Slide rules are way old school. The Wizwheel is the moden version of
the slide rule.
When I was in D.C. at the Air and Space museum they had a WWII pilot's
Wizwheel. It was way more complicated than ours in that it had
calculations for dropping bombs. I want to say there were 2 or 3 wheels
on it. I guess one guy in a cockpit flighting and dropping bombs needs
a pretty compact computer.

-Robert