Do you flight plan?

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
adventurous courageous spirits who set out to test
themselves and their flying machines.

You have got to be kidding.

What's with you guys? A guy builds a plane himself and flies it around
the
world
3 times and you don't think that's something, huh?

Well I haven't done it. I haven't even managed to go coast-to-coast yet.
I'm
pretty easily impressed, I guess.
Oh, well.


www.Rosspilot.com


Granted he has made some remarkable flights but he is not even in the same
church as those you listed much less the same pew.

adventurous courageous spirits who set out to test
themselves and their flying machines.

You have got to be kidding.

What's with you guys? A guy builds a plane himself and flies it around
the
world
3 times and you don't think that's something, huh?

Well I haven't done it. I haven't even managed to go coast-to-coast yet.
I'm
pretty easily impressed, I guess.
Oh, well.


www.Rosspilot.com


Granted he has made some remarkable flights but he is not even in the same
church as those you listed much less the same pew.


OK. So he's *just* an adventurous and courageous spirit.

That's a lot considering the average man I run into in my life.





www.Rosspilot.com

Brian Burger wrote:

If pilot-boy had arranged to have a few hundred litres of 100LL shipped
down beforehand, he'd have had less difficulty. As it is, why should the
Yanks or Kiwis bail him out?

It's probably not that simple. He wasn't planning to end up where he
did, my understanding is it was his 3rd choice. It's probably not
feasible to send fuel to all the places you MIGHT end up. I suspect if
you didn't use it you would also have to pay to ship it out again too
- they probably don't want barrels of avgas sitting around there
indefinitely.

Andrew Rowley writes:

Brian Burger wrote:

If pilot-boy had arranged to have a few hundred litres of 100LL shipped
down beforehand, he'd have had less difficulty. As it is, why should the
Yanks or Kiwis bail him out?

It's probably not that simple. He wasn't planning to end up where he
did, my understanding is it was his 3rd choice. It's probably not
feasible to send fuel to all the places you MIGHT end up.

Nope, but it is feasible to call ahead and say "If I land at your airport
am I going to be able to get fuel from you?" I'd bet that the scientists
would have told him "No, you will not." Then he could have used that
knowledge in his flight planning (on the ground and in the air). If he
really wanted to be able to immediately fly out of that location if he
had to use it, he would make arrangements to get fuel there.

Note that we don't know that the pilot is whining about not being able to
force the scientists to provide fuel to him. That's just Rosspilot. It
could be that our world-traveling pilot is being perfectly reasonable,
saying "Darn it. I was hoping this wouldn't happen, but it sure beats
taking a cold swim" and just trying to make the best of the situation.

--kyler

Dave,

you could always use FlightPlanner.com. It is web based and you should be
able to use it from mozilla or any of the linux browsers

Someday I will learn more about linux and get my home network up and
running.

Fred


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

Thanks to the AOPA's new flight planner, I now flight plan a lot more
than I used to. Give it a try, it's easy and very well done.



I've given it several tries. It still crashes. It still tells me about
waypoints named "Uuuuuuu". I've documented the problems to AOPA, no
response.

Too bad, it seems like a reasonably well designed user interface and a
lot of function.

Dave up the road at RDU.
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.



Bummer, Hmm I've never experienced that. I wonder if there is some
specific waypoint or area of the map that causes that? I haven't heard
a lot of other complaints about it either. Have you tried it on a
different computer?

Well, I've mentioned my problems here a couple of times and nobody has
said "me
too", so I guess it's something unique to me. Can't imagine what.

I only have the one Windoze computer, my other ones all run either Linux
or
Solaris. The windows machine has fairly recently been re-installed with
Win 98
and all the updates from microsoft.com. Maybe I'll try uninstalling and
installing the flight planner again... good ole Windoze. Maybe I have to
give
micro$oft some $$ and upgrade to XP. Naw, it's not worth that.

I'll struggle along with DUAT flight planning (which, incidentally, lets
me
specify the route without any goofy rubber-banding GUI interface).

Thanks for your interest.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

"Frederick Wilson" writes:

you could always use FlightPlanner.com. It is web based and you should be
able to use it from mozilla or any of the linux browsers

Aeroplanner is usable from Mozilla/Linux. Gotta turn on cookies (grumble
grumble), but it works without JavaScript.

--kyler

Whoopsie, Aeroplanner. Your right.

Fred


"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
"Frederick Wilson" writes:

you could always use FlightPlanner.com. It is web based and you should be
able to use it from mozilla or any of the linux browsers

Aeroplanner is usable from Mozilla/Linux. Gotta turn on cookies (grumble
grumble), but it works without JavaScript.

--kyler

Frederick Wilson wrote (that Kyler wrote):

Aeroplanner is usable from Mozilla/Linux. Gotta turn on cookies (grumble
grumble), but it works without JavaScript.

The nice thing about Mozilla is that you can enable cookies on a
site-by-site basis: it's no problem to have cookies on for Aeroplanner (and,
say, your bank), and off for everything else.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
The nice thing about Mozilla is that you can enable cookies on a
site-by-site basis

You can do this in Internet Explorer too. Sites can be allowed or blocked
explicitly, to override whatever your default settings are.

Kyler Laird wrote:

Nope, but it is feasible to call ahead and say "If I land at your airport
am I going to be able to get fuel from you?" I'd bet that the scientists
would have told him "No, you will not." Then he could have used that
knowledge in his flight planning (on the ground and in the air). If he
really wanted to be able to immediately fly out of that location if he
had to use it, he would make arrangements to get fuel there.

Note that we don't know that the pilot is whining about not being able to
force the scientists to provide fuel to him. That's just Rosspilot. It
could be that our world-traveling pilot is being perfectly reasonable,
saying "Darn it. I was hoping this wouldn't happen, but it sure beats
taking a cold swim" and just trying to make the best of the situation.

The interview I heard he said they made a mistake in continuing too
far before making the decision, and he could not make it back to New
Zealand. Sounded a fair enough assessment to me.

I am sure he knew that fuel could/would be a problem when he made the
decision to land there, but he chose to land there rather than going
elsewhere where the weather was a risk. At least he is:
- alive and unharmed,
- his aircraft is intact
- and no-one had to go looking for him
They are the main points I think. Should he have gone elsewhere if he
knew he wouldn't get fuel there? If so, where?

My impression is that certain groups are trying to paint him in as bad
a light as possible, basically to justify the ultra hard line being
taken - or maybe as part of the deterrent. This includes more than the
fuel issue - according to reports he has not been able to use their
telephones, and during one interview he said they would not even let
him charge his own phone.

There is an article in todays paper about the reception others have
got on expeditions to Antarctica, it sounds like the treatment is a
standard thing:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...125711709.html