A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

KCHD to KMYF



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 3rd 10, 07:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default KCHD to KMYF

writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.


KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine. Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.

Going over GBN is not necessary.


Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.


Your route does not include any VORs.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.


To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.
  #2  
Old May 4th 10, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default KCHD to KMYF

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Like a lot of what you post, there is nothing "wrong" with following V66,
it is just less than optimal.

If I were doing it for real and VFR, my route would be KHCD-NYL-KMYF and
at an altitude above 3,500, which keeps you out of all the restricted areas.


KCHD.KNYL.KMYF is 274.5 nm, whereas KCHD.GBN.V66.BARET is 274.2 nm, so your
route is actually longer than mine.


Actually, the distances are 273.8 and 273.4 respectfully.

Additionally, your route doesn't use any
VORs, so you either must trust your GPS completely or look for KNYL on the
ground as you pass over it. And KNYL is partially in the Dome MOA (ceiling
6000), whereas my route doesn't touch any MOAs and only grazes R-2311 if you
are flying quite low.


Wrong, I said NYL, which is a VOR, and said nothing about GPS.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about this. Which is not surprising,
since the V66 route was designed by specialists.


Actually, if you want to fly V66 until BARET, the route is
KCHD-GBN-MOHAK-BZA-IPL-BARET-KMYF

Going over GBN is not necessary.


Your route takes you eight nautical miles north of GBN.


Which is not the same as going over GBN.

That's if I were using VOR navigation.


Your route does not include any VORs.


Wrong, NYL is a VOR.

If I were using GPS, I would set a waypoint roughly between BZA and NYL.

Enroute I would enquire as to the status of R-2307 and R-2306E and alter
course to go direct to KMYF if possible.


To go direct, you'll need authorizations for R-2308B, R-2308A, R-2306A,
R-2507S, R-2512, and R-2510A, responsibility for which is partly Los Angeles
Center and partly Yuma Range Control. In exchange for these six different
authorizations, you'll gain a total of 4.4 nautical miles as compared with
your route over NYL (less for the standard V66 route), which is a gain of
1.6%.


Big woof.

I never said anything about going direct as the real world likelyhood of all
those areas being cold is about the same as hitting Lotto.

What I said was, if I were using GPS I would plan a waypoint roughly between
BZA and NYL. That would avoid all restricted areas.

Then enroute I would check if it were possible to transition any of the
restricted areas and change course FROM THAT POINT. I didn't say FROM THAT
POINT the first time since any real pilot would know that is implied by
"checking enroute".

And, looking at it closely, the GPS waypoint would be set just slightly
south of where the R-2307 area turns north, thus avoiding all restricted
areas for a total distance of about 272 nm.

I'm afraid I don't see anything optimal about your route. In fact, it's worse
than the normal V66 route.


The main reason to avoid V66 is the other traffic on the route.

The main reason to use V66 is it keeps a less than accurate pilot well away
from the restricted areas.

If you have GPS, know how to use it, and are uncertain of the state of all
the restricted areas, the GPS route is the shortest possible IF you wind up
being unable to transition any of them.

If you don't have GPS and are a low time pilot with marginal navigation skills,
I would then suggest taking the slighly longer VOR to VOR route.

A big part of real flying is planning alternatives and flying in a manner
appropriate for your equipment and skill level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #4  
Old May 4th 10, 02:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default KCHD to KMYF

Mike Adams writes:

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.


A lot depends on who makes the suggestion. The same suggestion will generate
different amounts of sophomoric noise in replies depending on who makes it.
  #5  
Old May 4th 10, 03:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default KCHD to KMYF


"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? What a waste of bandwidth.


No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC


  #6  
Old May 4th 10, 02:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default KCHD to KMYF

On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Mike Adams" wrote

Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.


*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments..


--
Jim in NC


It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark

  #7  
Old May 4th 10, 03:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Scien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default KCHD to KMYF

On May 4, 8:26*am, Mark wrote:
On May 3, 10:30*pm, "Morgans" wrote:



"Mike Adams" wrote


Good grief, this discussion is tiresome. It started off with a reasonable
aviation related question, and a reasonable suggestion, then quickly
degenerated into a debate about trivia. Do you guys just enjoy argument
for
argument's sake? *What a waste of bandwidth.


*No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. *Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. *It always ends up being much ado about nothing.


Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. *He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC


It's human nature to correct the ignorant, if indeed that
is the case. *Can a simulator enthusiast offer information
to actual pilots is the question. Ostracism should be
reserved for individuals not interested in sincere
participation. If he is that, then you are right.

---
Mark


Is deliberate ignorance really ignorance? After all these months/
years do you think that he is really interested in 'sincere'
participation? Seems to me he is always after the conflict, not
looking for any truth or conclusion. Which, by the way, is a typical
aspect of a troll.

Keep on feeding him, and falling for his baits, and you'll have to
keep on 'correcting' him when he is uncorrectable. He has no interest
of learning anything from you. He just wants to provoke you into an
argument.

From the very first post in this thread, you could tell it was bait.
He knew he would stoke the fire by answering before any real pilots.
Which is why he went out of his way to not post any of his typical
'questions', and pretended to look like he knew what he was talking
about. It wasn't until after you guys took the bait that he started
spouting the 'tell me what am I saying that is wrong' tripe,
successfully derailing the conversation.

Some people never learn it seems. Sorry.

Mike
  #8  
Old May 4th 10, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Scien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default KCHD to KMYF

I actually do have a question for the knowledgeable people here
though.

I'm still a newbie student pilot, so don't have a bunch of
experience. Out here in the midwest we don't have a bunch of the
restricted airspace like apparently out in the desert. Especially the
ones in question here that look like heavily clustered, and ranging
from 0 AGL to 80000 MSL. When calling the controlling agency is it
typical to be able to ask clearance into them all of them at once? Or
must it be done piecewise. Any risk of getting cleared into some of
them, then getting told the next is 'active' and having to adjust for
it? Could be problematic especially for the clustered restricted like
2306A, 2308A, 2308B, etc.

Is it typical for these clusters to have two different controlling
agencies? Probably not I hope.

Seems to someone like me not used to dealing with confusion like these
heavily clustered areas that it would be a pain to deal with.

Mike
  #9  
Old May 4th 10, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Martin Hotze[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default KCHD to KMYF

Am 04.05.2010 04:30, schrieb Morgans:

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.


"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat
you with experience."

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.


"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)
  #10  
Old May 4th 10, 05:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ari[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default KCHD to KMYF

On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:30:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

No discussion that involves MX is reasonable for long. Why do you think my
advice is to never involve yourself (or anyone) with a discussion with him
for any reason. It always ends up being much ado about nothing.

Why everyone does not understand this is beyond my comprehension. He would
be gone if everyone followed the advice to never respond to his arguments.
--
Jim in NC


Simple.

There are a lot of bored people on RAP. Many of them too old to fly so
they come here for something to do.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KMYF TWR Radio prblms 62204 approx2315z Doug Piloting 5 June 24th 04 06:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.