i think I flew into class c airspace accidentally withoutestablishing communication

On Jan 30, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... * :-o
That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...

Cheers

Cheers

SSR *without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...

You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
since windshields.

As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
you how mine went.

Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
engine just failed."

F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
during flight solely by reference to instruments.
2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
guidance.
4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.

Interesting. In our PPL there is no VOR requirement as far as I know.
It could be that there are few stations to tune into anyway... Sounds
like you were lucky to have your waypoint on a direct radial tho. But
did you actually track your position on the chart by visual reference
as you flew? if you did, would I be correct to say the map was (should
have been) your primary tool? I see your heading requirement is easier
than ours -ours is 5 degrees and within 100' and 5 knots. Could that
be because we have to fly DR and maps more often?

Cheers

Cheers

may be -maybe that's because you don't have such streict

Cheers

Cheers

there are few s

On Jan 30, 9:19*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
I was of course talking about pure VFR and am well aware that one may
require IFR skills at times. My concern is that the color GPS screens
are far too seductive and really do stop you keeping a mental
reference on a VFR chart. The trouble is, if you get too out of sync.
with the chart it's damn hard to find yourself -at least for me. Of
course you can always call up ATC and admit you are lost... * :-o
That said, provided you can stop and think time and heading from last
known position seems to generally get you in the right "square". As
for PPL test, I've not seen a requirement for using electronic aids
and the test does not involve an actual Xcountry and the Xcountries I
have completed did not use any electronic aids (the VOR was INOP). I
do know how to tune in a VOR and find a radial but never actually used
it -I'm too busy looking out the window (and that's why I fly)...

Cheers

Cheers

SSR *without using paart of the traaining requires hood time an...

You better start practicing because the requirement is there. Now I
don't know where you are in your training and will admit that the head
up or down issue is greater for a student or new pilot but there is no
reason for you not to be able to check a moving map with any more
difficulty than checking your altimeter or ASI. IMNSHO Moving Map GPS
have done more for the positive for situational awareness than anything
since windshields.

As far as the checkride not having a real XC flight in it. Let me tell
you how mine went.

Sit and plan a cross country. He said make sure we have a checkpoint
around some little town (don't remember which) that was about 20 miles
away. We took off and flew it like it was a XC using a VOR and after a
while he reached over and covered up the CDI for on the VOR I then tuned
the ADF for the outbound course and followed that a while then he
reached over and covered that up. When we got to the check point he
ended the XC portion of the ride by pulling power and saying, "Oops your
engine just failed."

F. TASK: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION
SYSTEMS/FACILITIES, AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-15, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to radio communications,
navigation systems/facilities, and radar services available for use
during flight solely by reference to instruments.
2. Selects the proper frequency and identifies the appropriate facility.
3. Follows verbal instructions and/or navigation systems/facilities for
guidance.
4. Determines the minimum safe altitude.
5. Maintains altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters); maintains heading, ±20°;
maintains airspeed, ±10 knots.

Interesting. In our PPL there is no VOR requirement as far as I know.
It could be that there are few stations to tune into anyway... Sounds
like you were lucky to have your waypoint on a direct radial tho. But
did you actually track your position on the chart by visual reference
as you flew? if you did, would I be correct to say the map was
(should
have been) your primary tool? I see your heading requirement is
easier
than ours -ours is 5 degrees and within 100' and 5 knots. Could that
be because I will have to fly DR and use visual reference/maps more
often?

I'd like to suggest another factor why a chart visual should be
considered primary for VFR. If you know where you are on the map it's
really quick to give a reference for say a mayday. e.g. 5m nne
townsville rather than have to check the scale etc. on the GPS
display?

Cheers

Cheers

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
news:2864057a-bfbf-496a-9b63-

So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
training??)

Depends on the flight. You need to be able to do whatever is required, and
then you can make your choices.

Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night and
if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip or
another isn't going to work.

Also, if you talk to NW Pilot here, who is in the (lucky f'in) business of
ferrying flights across vast expanses of water, he'll probably tell you that
there are times when visual navigation won't work.

Personally, I navigate by VOR/DME, but I use GPS as a sanity check. A quick
glimpse at the display is worth long minutes with a sectional and E6B while
you're trying to fly the airplane in, say, turbulence. Whenever I use the
GPS, though, I check outside for quick visual cues, or I cross-reference
with the Nav radios as a sort of reverse-sanity check. The important thing
is that pilot, VOR and GPS all agree on where you're at.

(In the Pacific Northwest, if you can see the mountains it's difficult to
get lost.)


-c

On Jan 30, 7:52*am, "gatt" wrote:
"WingFlaps" wrote in message

news:2864057a-bfbf-496a-9b63-

So you are suggestigng that electronics should be the primary nav tool
(why then do we spend soooo much time on visual navigation during
training??)

Depends on the flight. *You need to be able to do whatever is required, and
then you can make your choices.

Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night and
if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip or
another isn't going to work.


Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
and in that case it would be a chart for VFR (and that is the main
point I am asking for confirmation of). Now if there are no ground
references that primary tool won't work so you then use your secondary
tools...

Also, if you talk to NW Pilot here, who is in the (lucky f'in) business of
ferrying flights across vast expanses of water, he'll probably tell you that
there are times when visual navigation won't work.

Yep, no ground reference just like being above cloud...

Cheers

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
news:3605c0f3-af3f-4b88-a004-

Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool.
For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night
and
if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip
or
another isn't going to work.

Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
and in that case it would be a chart for VFR

I can't think of an instance where that's not true. The (current)
sectional is authoritative for VFR flights compared against GPS or whatever
else you're using.


-c

On Jan 30, 1:04*pm, "gatt" wrote:
"WingFlaps" wrote in message

news:3605c0f3-af3f-4b88-a004-

Any pilot better be prepared to use electronics as the primary nav tool..
For example, eastern Washington state looks awful nondescript at night
and
if there's a cloud layer above, putting the north star off of one wingtip
or
another isn't going to work.
Yes, I agree. My point is that most of the time you use primary tools
and in that case it would be a chart for VFR

I can't think of an instance where that's not true. * *The (current)
sectional is authoritative for VFR flights compared against GPS or whatever
else you're using.

-c

Thankyou for answering my question. I guess I was right in my ideas.
Tha's one down for the practical test!

Cheers

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...

You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.

It was for me.


No it wasn't.



But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have understood
that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that basically wrote
that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any electronic navigation
system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure you knew this as well and
just like starting arguments.


What you're sure of is incorrect.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
It was for me.


No it wasn't.

Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took
my PPL checkride in.




But had you read the thread (and I know you did) you would have understood
that I was countering the argument of a student pilot that basically wrote
that non-instrument pilots shouldn't be using any electronic navigation
system as primary navigation. But I'm also sure you knew this as well and
just like starting arguments.


What you're sure of is incorrect.




So you just jumped into the thread without reading the previous and
quoted posts and acted like a dick. While I think you are lying it
doesn't really surprise me.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...

You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.


It was for me.


No it wasn't.


Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took my
PPL checkride in.


No it wasn't. The PP requirements are not altered by the equipment in the
aircraft used for the checkride.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.

It was for me.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was. I had no other electronic nav system in the aircraft I took my
PPL checkride in.


No it wasn't. The PP requirements are not altered by the equipment in the
aircraft used for the checkride.



Your sound more like MX every time you touch your keyboard.

Let's try something.

A. Is there a requirement in the PP standard to show use of a electronic
navigation system?
If Yes go to B.
If No you're an idiot I already posted the requirement.

B. If VOR is the only electronic navigation system in the plane how will
one be tested on an ADF, GPS or anything else?