Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

Excactly half the width of the ones you fly.

If you don't know the answers to my questions, why do you reply?

I gave you the answer.

--
Duncan

chris writes:

I see.. We have something slightly different.. Airports have a thing
called a Control Zone which is generally 10 nm in one direction from
the airfield and 5 miles the other way, and usually goes sfc-2500. We
have class C above that. I had assumed that was normal in other
countries but obviously not...

My guess is that Control Zone is your local term for one of the ICAO
airspaces, perhaps Class D if it's a small airport or Class B if it's a large
one. You would refer to it as a Control Zone at home but from the ICAO's
viewpoint it would be one of the standard airspace classes.

Ah.. Well I fly 50/50 C172 and Archer in real life but I find them a
bit slow on X-plane.. The 172 has a rear window, the Archer does not.
Also I remember when I had a crack at MSFS a while ago the Baron was
good fun and reasonably quick. I know I wouldn't have a **** show of
being able to fly one in real life.. Even our Twin Comanche at the
club is way way beyond my skills

The Dreamfleet Baron 58 is vastly more accurate than the default Baron in
MSFS, although the default Baron is no slouch.

I know nothing about IFR...

Ah. Well, try it in simulation. I like IFR. It's fun to fly around in
darkness sometimes with only instruments to guide you to your destination, and
then see the airport and runway exactly where you predicted they would be as
you make your approach. Autoland can be fun for the same reason. Technology
at its best.

And me! About the most daring thing I do in a plane is making a pen
float, but last time I did that I got a bit carried away and had all
the stuff in the pockets in the back of the seats flying...

I don't like strong accelerations. I like procedures and precision, not
roller-coaster rides. That's why a ride in a fighter plane would appeal to me
many times less than a ride in an airliner.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 11, 4:29 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
I see.. We have something slightly different.. Airports have a thing
called a Control Zone which is generally 10 nm in one direction from
the airfield and 5 miles the other way, and usually goes sfc-2500. We
have class C above that. I had assumed that was normal in other
countries but obviously not...

My guess is that Control Zone is your local term for one of the ICAO
airspaces, perhaps Class D if it's a small airport or Class B if it's a large
one. You would refer to it as a Control Zone at home but from the ICAO's
viewpoint it would be one of the standard airspace classes.


I won't argue as I have absolutely no idea if you are right or
wrong.. All I know is to approach a towered airport we need clearance
to enter the control zone.. Anything else I say would be sheer
speculation

Ah.. Well I fly 50/50 C172 and Archer in real life but I find them a
bit slow on X-plane.. The 172 has a rear window, the Archer does not.
Also I remember when I had a crack at MSFS a while ago the Baron was
good fun and reasonably quick. I know I wouldn't have a **** show of
being able to fly one in real life.. Even our Twin Comanche at the
club is way way beyond my skills

The Dreamfleet Baron 58 is vastly more accurate than the default Baron in
MSFS, although the default Baron is no slouch.

Nice...


I know nothing about IFR...

Ah. Well, try it in simulation. I like IFR. It's fun to fly around in
darkness sometimes with only instruments to guide you to your destination, and
then see the airport and runway exactly where you predicted they would be as
you make your approach. Autoland can be fun for the same reason. Technology
at its best.


I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
more complicated than I could deal with...


And me! About the most daring thing I do in a plane is making a pen
float, but last time I did that I got a bit carried away and had all
the stuff in the pockets in the back of the seats flying...

I don't like strong accelerations. I like procedures and precision, not
roller-coaster rides. That's why a ride in a fighter plane would appeal to me
many times less than a ride in an airliner.

Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
the same reason.

chris writes:

I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
more complicated than I could deal with...

Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
to merit studying it.

Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
well.

I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
the former category, as you may have surmised.

Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
the same reason.

I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
either.

My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
view.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm sure there is time-tested logic behind patterns, I'm just having trouble
seeing it.


If you would bother to read any introductory pilot material or flew
in an airplane with windows you'd see that the reason for patterns
is the same reason for the hemispherical cruising altitudes. It's
easier to see people at the same altitude when they are converging
slower.

At a busy towered airport, I'd probably request a straight-in approach if I
could get it, or file IFR and take an ILS approach.

At a busy towered airport you do what the controller tells you to do,
which may be a straight in, a base entry, or a full pattern.

When I'm completely alone at an airport, I've occasionally made some wild
approaches. I wouldn't do that in real life, though, because they are pretty
risky (although I usually manage to land safely).

You don't do anything in real life, you play aviation masturbation
fantasies in your own pathetic little world. It's not reality.

LET ME REPEAT. IT'S NOT REAL.
'
DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

Ron Natalie writes:

If you would bother to read any introductory pilot material or flew
in an airplane with windows you'd see that the reason for patterns
is the same reason for the hemispherical cruising altitudes. It's
easier to see people at the same altitude when they are converging
slower.

They could converge slowly without flying a pattern.

At a busy towered airport you do what the controller tells you to do,
which may be a straight in, a base entry, or a full pattern.

I have the option of telling the controller what I'd like to do. He may even
ask.

DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

They are not my fantasies; they are simulation. There are some crucial
differences between the two.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Ron Natalie" wrote

DON'T CONFUSE REAL PILOTS, AND THOSE WITH AN INTEREST IN REALITY
WITH YOUR INVENTED FANTASIES.

I see you have finally lost your patience with our troll. Congratulations.

My hope is that everyone will; sooner, rather than later.
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 11, 11:49 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
more complicated than I could deal with...

Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
to merit studying it.


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
good, I just dunno..

Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
well.

I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
the former category, as you may have surmised.


The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments. I have done
5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
funny feeling!!!

Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
the same reason.

I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
either.


I didn't like wingdrops at first, and spins are like wingdrops on
acid :-)

My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
view.


Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

On 11 Feb 2007 00:49:00 -0800, "chris"
wrote:

On Feb 11, 11:49 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
I was thinking about having a read up on it, I have been for a fly
with someone doing some of that stuff and it seemed to me to be far
more complicated than I could deal with...

Everyone has his reasons for flying. If you don't enjoy the idea of flying on
instruments, certainly there's little reason to pursue it. It would come in
handy if you accidentally got stuck in IMC or if for some reason you really
wanted to fly on a day with bad weather, but those may not be frequency enough
to merit studying it.


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
good, I just dunno..

With the current rules the problem is not just flying IFR, but by
reference to instruements only. In the soup counts, but othewise you
need a safety pilot to be legal.


Trying it on a sim is a cheap way to find out what it's like, and may well be
enough to help you decide if you really want to pursue it in real life as
well.

I'd expect IFR to appeal to the engineering, technician types of pilots. VFR
would appeal to pilots who like to feel the wind in their hair and the
sensations of movement (which you'd have to ignore in IFR, of course). I'm in
the former category, as you may have surmised.

IFR appeals to pilots who want more freedom from the weather and
pilots who do a lot of long cross countries. When flying over 500
miles I find it difficult to not cross at least one if not two weather
fronts or systems.

The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments. I have done
5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
funny feeling!!!

It CAN get a lot more drastic than that! :-))
It takes little more to convince your brain straight and level is a
tight turn while light flickering through a layer of clouds will
convince your brain your are making quite a turn.
I have one photo that was shot from the rear seat of a Cherokee 180 in
actual. In the photo every one appears to be leaning until you
realize the two of us in front are aligned with the AI. It was the guy
with the camera who had the leans and no one is immune.


Each to his own, I always say... I refuse to experience spinning for
the same reason.

I love aerobatics.

I wouldn't want to experience a spin for reasons of safety rather than strong
sensation, although I wouldn't consider the sensation a positive experience,
either.

They are quite safe when done in a plane that is approved for them and
when the pilot has taught AND learned the proper way to do them and
safely recover.

I didn't like wingdrops at first, and spins are like wingdrops on
acid :-)


My Deb does that in a simple straight ahead stall. It has no washout
in the wings so the stalls are quite abrupt. Fun but abrupt.

My idea of a good flight is one in which every procedure is followed, every
regulation is observed, every ATC instruction is promptly executed, the path
and altitude of the aircraft precisely follow the flight plan (with any
amendments), and the take-off and landing are flawless. The actual physical
movement may be not much more than that experienced in an elevator ride. I do
like to look out the window, however, if flying conditions provide a good
view.
Some of the most beautiful views I've had were on instruments between
layers. It looked sureal, or like a scifi painting. clouds above and
clouds below connected with pillars with isolated small clouds
floating between the levels. The light was a fluorescent green. it
was one of the most fantastic sights I've seen in all my flying.


Throw in a few steep turns. lazy eights, and some practice stalls.
:-)) I don't fly as much as I used to so nearly every flight without
passengers is just plain practice.



Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

Passengers are a different matter. Always give your passengers the
best ride possible with the least excitement.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

chris writes:

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is
that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating
he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be
good, I just dunno..

I don't know if anyone is advocating that, but it does seem that there's a
strong tendency to get rusty if one doesn't practice IFR regularly, and there
are even some statutory requirements to this effect.

It surprised me to read in another post that it's possible to get an
instrument rating without ever actually flying in IMC. If this is true, then
what separates me, in a simulator, flying by instruments, from an
instrument-rated pilot? It sounds like neither of us has necessarily flown in
IMC. And IMC is the only part I haven't experienced. Maybe I should ask for
a free instrument rating.

The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments.

So I've heard.

An open question is whether previous experience with aircraft motion is
preferable to no experience with aircraft motion when learning to fly on
instruments. In instrument flight, you have to ignore motion, because your
sensations are not at all reliable if you cannot correlate them with visual
information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical
sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or is
it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never depended
on them at all for flying (as in simulation).

My guess is that they are about equal, and if anything, the simulator pilot is
slightly favored, as he has no bad habits to unlearn.

I have done
5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to
keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into..
And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to
put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to
1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans
were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way
but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a
gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's
turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight
and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real
funny feeling!!!

And did you find it hard to ignore? Was it a struggle to trust the
instruments? Or was it merely a nuisance?

In an elevator, if you go from a low floor to a high floor, you'll experience
a distinct feeling of dropping as the elevator stops at the destination floor.
Do most people jab desperately at the elevator buttons trying to stop it from
falling, or do they ignore the sensation and look at the display in the
elevator to verify that they are indeed stopping at the right floor and not
descending again?

I thus wonder whether the trouble some pilots have with misleading sensations
in instrument flight is not a direct result of learning to depend excessively
on sensations in visual flight (without realizing that the sensations are
useless until visual information constantly corroborates them). If so, then
never having learned to depend on sensation would be a great advantage in
instrument flight.

Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a
gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns...

For me, that's good piloting. The less passengers feel, the better I'm doing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.