KCHD to KMYF

Well Blanche.

Blanche, I am with you on this one..

Mx's answer was correct and reasonable, unfortunately the drivel
follows....

We have a multi buck facility here that does just that, TRAIN THE
PILOTS IN SIMULATORS !!!

....SO THEY GET IT RIGHT before getting in the aircraft!

MX gets the point, peanut gallery = 0.

Once again, this proves you get the most noise from the emptiest
barrels......

.....stumbling over each other to slam him for being right, which he is
too often for their liking...

We had an IFR instructor here some years ago that was considered one
of the best, and he did not even have a pilots licence.

And he rarely even flew in an airplane!

....but he was one of the best IFR instructors ever.....

Cheers!

dave






On 04 May 2010 16:21:42 GMT, Blanche wrote:

wrote:
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.

Absolutely, but Jim, the OP did not provide on-board equipment nor
skill or confidence level. As such, the response for V66 is reasonable.
It may not be the most practical, but it is reasonable.

Now, given your rationale, the route you describe is also reasonable.
Aint no one single correct answer (despite what the FAA claims)

writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,

Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.

Give me an example.

I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do flight
planning for the purpose of real flying.

Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't matter
where or how you "fly". It is just a game.

In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a sectional and
see that this is true?

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,

Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.

Give me an example.

I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do flight
planning for the purpose of real flying.

Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't matter
where or how you "fly". It is just a game.

In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a sectional and
see that this is true?

A while back you were saying the Victor airways do have published minimum
altitudes.

Have you changed your mind?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,

Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.

Give me an example.

I payed an instructor to teach me how to read a Sectional and do
flight planning for the purpose of real flying.

Since all you do is play with a PC flight simulator, it doesn't
matter where or how you "fly". It is just a game.

In other words, the Victor airways on sectionals do not have published
minimum altitudes. Why not just admit this, since anyone can look at a
sectional and see that this is true?

Huh?

In my sectionals the Legend says:

"Class E Airspace exists at 1200' AGL unless otherwise designated as
shown above."

together with:

"Class E Airspace low altitude Federal Airways are indicated by center
line."

So a Federal Airway is Class E, and between the text quoted above from
the Sectional Legend and the airspace markings on it, the base altitude
of the Victor airway appears "published" to me. Pick a spot on any airway
and you should be able to determine the base of Class E that marks its
base.

Anyway, according to Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, the base of
Class E is raised along many Victor airways in mountainous regions in
order to avoid terrain from blocking VOR signals, not so as to avoid
obstacles to flight.

I haven't followed this thread, but unless I've misread, one person
appears to be arguing for opposite assertions:

"Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,"
"[...] Victor airways on sectionals do not have published minimum
altitudes."

In article ,
says...


A Cessna 152 is really easy to fly. I don't think it would be a problem for
me. However, it's too slow for my tastes (usually).

It would floor you.





Single-pilot IFR? Yup, it can be a lot of work. You have to stay ahead of
the
aircraft or bad things happen--both in a simulator and in real life.


Sorry to hear about the "bad things" that happen. Must be very distressing.




Do you fly a lot of single-pilot IFR? Any time in jets?


Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?
As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR. My comments are from
experience, which is why the inappropriateness and incorrectness of your own
jumped out at me.

In article ,
says...


The simulator doesn't allow that. Besides, flying a Citation X single-pilot
is
quite a handful already.


Slow and safe, eh?
Does your toy tell you that the Citation X is not single-pilot certified?
Would you knowingly initiate a flight single-pilot in an aircraft that
requires two crew? That would be illegal and unsafe. Or, as you are fond
of saying, "Bad things happen..." Crew coordination and CRM are what it’s all
about flying a plane like the "X" and something tells me you would not be well
versed in these skills!

Or perhaps the toy simply puts you where you belong, in passenger mode, so you
can look out the window. In the lower portion of the screen you can see a fake
glass of champagne. Maybe way up in the corner of the screen you can just make
out a locked door. That’s the door that non-pilots like yourself never get to
see the other side of.

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Individual clouds are not part of flight planning, since you don't know where
they are or what they will be like until you encounter them.

UMMM WRONG.......

Flight planning DOES NOT stop after starting the engine. But it's
obvious you don't know this.

On May 5, 3:38*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

MSFS simulates turbulence, but not with physical motion.

Then it doesn't simulate turbulence does it? I have never been in
turbulence WITHOUT physical motion.

On May 6, 1:43*am, VOR-DME wrote:

Now you are challenging real pilots about their experience?

Heh heh, this isn't the first time.....

As a matter of fact, I regularly fly single-pilot IFR.

Me too. It gets me that Mx thinks that MSFS simulates turbulence.
Now imagine that LOL

Gee, have you ever gotten the leans from MSFS. Not me!

On May 5, 3:29*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

I plan as I would for a real-world flight and then fly that in the sim.

What flight planner do you use????