KCHD to KMYF

Blanche wrote:
Kimmy Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 3, 9:36?am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
That's because you are simulating, you are not flying a real airplane.

What changes in the real world that would make V66 a poor choice?

I will answer that after you answer my questions.

Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
moron.

wow isn't RAP great.

No wonder most of us have left.

OK, question for the morons...I'm a pilot and aircraft owner. Altho
I've never flown between Phoenix & Montgomery, but I have flown
in Arizona (and Phoenix in particular), is my recommendation any
less valid or more valid?

And strangely enough (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Mx has
made a perfectly reasonable route suggestion. I checked my charts and
such and agree with his recommendation. I don't say this because I
trust the US Feds on routes but looking at the geography, MOAs and
such, it does make sense.

[I really can't believe that not only am I agreeing with Mx but
supporting him...)

There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.

The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
to them that doesn't exist.

Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

The "best" route depends on your equipment and your goals, and can
include anything from minimum fuel to wanting to see some scenic landmark
from the air.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

Then why do they exist?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Flying on Victor airways is no safer than flying any other legal route.

Then why do they exist?

Convenience in a pre-GPS world and derived from A-N courses in a pre-VOR
world.

In the VOR world, the ambiguity's in VOR accuracy spreads people laterally
across a Victor airway.

In the GPS world, the accuracy of GPS puts everyone right down the center
line of a Victor airway.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you near a VOR?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Convenience in a pre-GPS world and derived from A-N courses in a pre-VOR
world.

You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously you have a problem with airways, or
at least you have since I suggested one.

I see airways as providing guaranteed levels of obstacle clearance and navaid
reception. Routing is simplified by following pre-established airways as
opposed to making every flight one of a kind.

In the VOR world, the ambiguity's in VOR accuracy spreads people laterally
across a Victor airway.

In the GPS world, the accuracy of GPS puts everyone right down the center
line of a Victor airway.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you near a VOR?

If you cannot be bothered to see and avoid or use radar flight following, you
can navigate by VOR and benefit from the inaccuracy to which you allude.

You'll have the same problem with GPS when navigating anywhere, including to
arbitrary published waypoints.

On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you navigate alone in your little
airplane?

How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?
How many instances of controlled flight into terrain have occurred off
airways?

Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
airway is that I suggested it. If I had suggested direct GPS, you'd have a
field day with that, especially if I suggested flying through restricted
areas. But your real objective is to try and invalidate whatever I say,
whether it makes sense or not. And it irritates you all the more when what I'm
saying makes sense.

The thing is, I almost always make sense, because I research and study and
look things up, instead of inventing things off the top of my head. I just
repeat what authoritative and reliable sources provide, which pretty much
guarantees that I'll always be right. If you were able to separate the message
from the messenger, you would understand this.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
airway is that I suggested it.

Nope, the problem I have is you seeme to be convinced that using a Victor
airway has some magical properties that guarantee's safety.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

The minimum safe altitude for an airway isn't necessarily the same as the
maximum elevation figure for the quadrant on the sectional. Furthermore,
OROCAs on IFR charts are still different (with a more generous buffer).

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Can you point me to some of them?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

The minimum safe altitude for an airway isn't necessarily the same as the
maximum elevation figure for the quadrant on the sectional. Furthermore,
OROCAs on IFR charts are still different (with a more generous buffer).

Ice cream has no bones.

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Can you point me to some of them?

Google.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote

There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.

The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
to them that doesn't exist.

MX may be partly right, often.

Thing is, he will always _ _ ALWAYS _ _ end up turning the conversation
around to make you argue a point that is of no importance _ _ JUST _ _ to
prove you wrong.

ALWAYS ! ! !

Can anyone disagree with that?

The point is, why bother, when you know it is coming? Can anyone think of
one good reason? Just one?
--
Jim in NC