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

Judah writes:

How do you have time to look without hitting a mountain?

That is not a possibility in a car (I assume you were talking about
using a GPS in a car).

Also, the GPS is right above the dashboard, so I can see what it says
and look outside at the same time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

The accidents only prove that human beings don't always do what they can.
Perhaps they encounter situations that are beyond their control and/or
capability, perhaps they make mistakes, or perhaps they are arrogant cowboys
and decide they can do what they want.

It is also both possible and probable that the tests given to
prospective pilots are insufficiently accurate in predicting the
ability of a pilot to handle real-world situations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The parking brake on the BE 23/24 and 76 uses a lock that
stops the master cylinder from bleeding fluid back from the
brake assemblies. It is a simple device. The brakes are
not designed to be used for long term parking since they do
not compensate for temperature changes. If the hot brakes
are set and then cool the pressure and therefore the brake
releases. Even if the brakes are cool, over the night, the
air temperature will drop and the brakes release. Worse, if
you set the parking brake when it is cool or cold and then
the temperature goes up, the pressure increases locking the
brake solid and can damage the system. Often the only way
to get the parking brake to release is to open the brake
bleeder valve and that will require time and a mechanic to
re-bleed the brakes.

The manual says that the brake is for short term use, such
as keeping the plane stationary while you get chocks.

To set the brake, apply pressure with the toe brake and
then gently pull the control out, you're just moving a small
valve that takes very little force. To release the brake,
apply pressure with the toe brakes to unload the valve and
then push the control in. The control should have about 1/8
to 1/4 inch cushion and the knob will not sit at rest
against the panel.


"B A R R Y" wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:23:59 GMT, A Lieberma

| wrote:
|
| B A R R Y wrote in
news:ziN2h.754$7F3.71
| :
|
| I'm happy, but we just got the Slowdowner as "perfect"
as I care... G
|
| Took me three years to get to the point where I got every
switch knob and
| button working.
|
| We kind of gave up on the parking brake. G
|
| Next up will be the interior when I get rich and famous
for the money.
|
| I feel your pain...

Two sentences from this notice: "It appears airmen are failing to use
basic VFR navigation and map reading skills. Instead, in most
circumstances, they are using GPS devices to navigate to and from Las
Vegas, NV.".

I've only flown the Beaty/Tonopah VFR corridor once. It took about 15
seconds with the charts to learn that all I needed to do to avoid this
restricted airspace was to stay west of highway 95. There was no need to
have a GPS, loran, VOR, or ADF to avoid penetrating the multiple
restricted
airspaces north of Nellis.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I got that notice also, too many people hit "direct" on the GPS and then
never look at a chart.
Not all handheld GPS will have the airspace, especially if it is a cheap
"not intended for aviation" handheld.

BT

Mixmaster said:
Because, as I have previously explained, I study. While neonates may
be constrained to learn only through direct experience and trial and
error, older human beings have the option of looking things up.

There are things that have to be experienced in order to understand them.

Consider for a moment the notion of consciousness and "artificial
intellegence". I have no doubt that one day computers could be
programmed to converse in English. They will have huge databanks of
words, appropriate useages, rules for formulating replies, rules for
inferring context, files full of slang terms, and all sorts of stuff
like that so that one could type ordinary English into the machine, have
a conversation, and wonder if the computer on the other end is really a
machine or an actual human being. With enough computing power and a big
enough rule set, such a machine would be able to do far better than
Eliza's "answer a question with a reformulated question" paradigm. You
could, for example, start typing about baseball, and it would seem like
you were talking with a real fan, who though he may not know everything
about the game, is interested in and able to fill in the gaps.

Does this machine =understand= baseball?

I would say no. Until it has actually swung a bat and run around the
bases, heard the roar of the crowd, eaten a hot dog at the stadium,
fingered the trading cards and chewed the bubblegum, and walked across
the empty field after a game, this machine does =not= "understand"
baseball. It has merely evidenced appropriate responses to a stream of
ASCII.

This is not "understanding".

And this is where, in the context of aviation, you sit. You don't
=understand= flying, even though you may type as if you think you do.

If you want to understand what it is that makes a pilot want to fly, you
need to actually fly through the air yourself. It's visceral. It's
real. It's what life is made of. There is no alternative to real
understanding. Now, having actually done so, you may disagree, you may
find it's not for you, you may find you were right all along. But you
will =understand= in a way you couldn't possibly understand now just why
you were right. Alternatively, you may discover that you were actually
wrong, but this way you will understand in your soul what the big deal
is about, and you will see why you were wrong in a way that no amount of
Usenet posting will show you.

Take a flight. Just one. Then come back.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

It is also both possible and probable that the tests given to
prospective pilots are insufficiently accurate in predicting the
ability of a pilot to handle real-world situations.

What, exactly, is the probability of that? And what is your source of
information to have defined that probability?

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:35:04 -0800, Sylvain wrote:

B A R R Y wrote:
I think mechanical E6B's are very useful, I don't feel the need to own
an electronic version. However, computers and calculators have done
much for science and engineering.

I am not advocating using sliderules at work (though, it can
be fun), but folks who started with them have a different
mind set when it comes to numbers, like a better understanding
of what constitutes significant figures and order of magnitudes...
a bit for the same reason glider pilots make better powered pilots
(ok, give me some credit for trying to bringing it back on
topic :-)

Carrying the characteristic in your head while slipsticking through a
lengthy calculation was an invitation to be off by orders of magnitude
when you were finished. What the engineering sliderule did positively
for us silverbacks was to ingrain in us a sense of "significant
figures" and a dislike for false precision.

I think the virtue of the E6B is less it's ability to rapidly perform
time/distance/fuel calculations than the presence of its little
DENALT and TAS windows.

I'm not sure of the value of the wind triangle calculator unless
you're navigating a bomber from Leeds to Ploesti on a cloudy night
raid.

Don

Judah writes:

What, exactly, is the probability of that?

Very high.

And what is your source of information to have defined that probability?

It is a longstanding problem with all types of standardized tests.
They never precisely represent the skills or knowledge they are
supposed to be testing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah wrote:
What, exactly, is the probability of that? And what is your source of
information to have defined that probability?

Microsoft Probability Simulator, of course...

Mxsmanic wrote:
[...] Definitely a rich man's hobby.

Yes and no. Certainly there are ways to spend a lot of money on
flying, but that goes for boating as well.

People are always surprised to hear that a good used airplane is about
the same price as a fully loaded van or SUV.

I think everyone should be A) drafted in the military for two years,
and B) taught to boat, drive and fly. Then we might get a better and
more informed voting public.

YMMV ;-)

Kev