Maintaining VFR altitudes when following N/S roads/rivers

"Bob F." wrote

Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't have
a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while and see
how it goes.

And the cycle continues, with different names, and different subjects, but
the same, never less.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground
while flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers
off to one side or the other, are you expected to change your altitude
each time you move from a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?

You appear to familiar with FAR 91.159. There are two aspects you didn't
make clear in your hypothetical question that determine whether it can be
answered objectively: whether the aircraft is more than 3000 AGL and
whether the aircraft is maintaining level cruising flight. Once you have
those answered you should be able to answer the question yourself.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Bob F." wrote

Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I don't
have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along for a while
and see how it goes.

And the cycle continues, with different names, and different subjects, but
the same, never less.
--
Jim in NC


Not to mention the fact, you are probably arguing with Dudley.

Mxsmanic wrote:
If you are following a road or river or other feature on the ground while
flying VFR, and that feature runs north/south but often veers off to one side
or the other, are you expected to change your altitude each time you move from
a heading of 0-179 to 180-359 or vice versa?


I usually "cut the corner" and roll inverted. This allows me to flip
the bird to the guy in the semi that's hogging the road below.

On Aug 24, 5:52*pm, "BT" wrote:

What you are doing is not pilotage.
Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

BT

Hmmm? I think what you are describing above is dead reckoning, not
pilotage.

On Aug 24, 8:09*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
BT writes:
What you are doing is not pilotage.
Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed..
Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
includes roads and rivers. *Successful pilotage implies that you can navigate
with just the visual features and a chart. *If you are using calculations to
determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. *I do try to navigate
that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
features on the land below alone.

Well,, well,, chalk one up for the desktop pilot and one down for BT!

On Aug 24, 8:53*pm, "Bob F." wrote:

"Wilhelm" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in message

Go **** yourself Bob. You're either terminally stupid or a hopeless
sockpuppet.

oh...now's here's a scholar that we would all like to imitate in the Western
World.

Regards, *Bob F

Yeah, replies like that should receive more ignorance than Anthony.

On Aug 25, 9:46 am, Ricky wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:09 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

BT writes:
What you are doing is not pilotage.
Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

just following a meandering river or road is not pilotage.

Pilotage is supposedly navigation by visual landmarks, which presumably
includes roads and rivers. Successful pilotage implies that you can navigate
with just the visual features and a chart. If you are using calculations to
determine your position, it's more like dead reckoning. I do try to navigate
that way, too, but periodically I like to practice navigation by visual
features on the land below alone.

Well,, well,, chalk one up for the desktop pilot and one down for BT!

For what it's worth, pilotage is sweaty finger on a chart, point to
point flying. Dead reckoning is a corruption of the phrase deduced
reckoning, and comes about from the sailing days where one would
attempt to take into account all of the influences on the track over
the bottom -- wind, currents, estimated speed and so on, to deduce
where one would be at a given time. In a way a NDB approach has a lot
of dead reckoning built into the procedure. The pilot knows where the
airplane was when it crosses over the beacon, and taking into account
wind drift and a hint of wind velocity as learned from the procedure
turn inbound, 'deduces' where the airport might be. If the deductions
and piloting is correct, when (s)he looks up after the correct amount
of time passes by, the airport should be right there. I am so glad I
don't have to fly many NDB approaches any more. None precision indeed!

Ricky wrote in news:5d9f329e-0c99-4658-99a8-
:

On Aug 24, 5:52*pm, "BT" wrote:

What you are doing is not pilotage.
Fly a straight line based on compass and wind correction computations.
Time between visual points, towns, bridges, etc to compute ground speed.
Correct the heading slightly based on "observations" from pilotage.

BT

Hmmm? I think what you are describing above is dead reckoning, not
pilotage.




Dead reckoning means no corections based on landmarks wahtsoever.


Bertie

"Wilhelm" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Bob F." wrote

Maybe I'm like the blind man touching the elephant here since I
don't have a lot of experience with him. So maybe I'll play along
for a while and see how it goes.

And the cycle continues, with different names, and different
subjects, but the same, never less.
--
Jim in NC


Not to mention the fact, you are probably arguing with Dudley.




Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhah!


Yeh, OK, k00kie boi.


BTW, if anyone is confused about the actual definition of a sock, this is
it.


Bertie