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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really paying a big tax!! No, they pay for a big *taxi* to carry all those cases of approach plates. - Andrew |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 8388e.18726$xL4.8356@attbi_s72:: I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily result in increased safety not numbers. I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions. Perhaps GPS navigation would be an appropriate additional topic for inclusion in the airman Private written examination. :-) With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test. On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge. Where is the term "optional knowledge" defined? Is everything beyond airspeed, compass and ball optional in your opinion? Where does the boundary between 'optional' and 'essential' lie, in your opinion? To fly, all you really need is a sectional map and a compass -- and I know guys who fly safely without *those*. Oh, like the Air Tractor pilot killed in the MAC with a military training flight recently? :-) Where do they do that? Certainly not over sprawling urban areas in marginal visibility. It's beginning to sound like your frame of reference is the sparely populated plains. Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating regulations. The same is true of transition through KLAX Class B airspace on the charted transition routes. VOR navigating is required. Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep it exclusive? In the '70s, Cessna, Piper and Beech tried the Country Club marketing approach to flight instruction and aircraft rental. Their advertising showed nattily attired upscale 30-something socializing at the FBO, and generally attempted to shed the grease-stained hanger aspect of aviation. Today you can see the results of that not insubstantial effort: nil. It seems, that most folks interested in piloting aircraft possess courage, desire, intelligence and means beyond the norm. I have a hard time believing that Joe-sixpack will ever dominate the ranks. Aviation isn't elitist by design; it's a natural result of human nature. In its current state, aviation isn't for everyone. Technology may change that, and when that occurs, easing airman's testing requirements may be appropriate. Today, dumbing-down the training criteria to attract the unqualified seems like a step in the wrong direction destined to fail in an unpleasant way. The NTSB has announced, that 2004 was general aviation's safest year yet. I fail to see how eliminating material from the airman's training curricula will positively impact aviation safety. I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers -- who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out. Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise? A US President once said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Given the fact, that aviation is expected to double or tipple in the not too distant future, I find a fear of dwindling ranks of airmen suspicious if not unfounded. And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys? Airport funding? If the number of active airmen fails to decline due to baby-boomers failing medical requirements, and safety suffers as a result of dumbing-down the airman's examination requirements, what do you think will be the reaction of the regulators and the public? Your suggestion could as easily backfire as succeed. We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every 14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse. The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy developers, not a dearth of pilots. We need more pilots. Perhaps, but you have failed to convince me of that allegation, and I oppose your approach to achieving it. If you want more pilots, you need to reduce the cost of aviation, not compromise safety. Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath. It will at least provide some tangible statistics. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
How much to "subscribe" to either NOAA or Jepp approach plates?
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:44:11 GMT, (Ross Oliver) wrote: Jay Honeck wrote: Who in the world uses VORs for daily flight anymore? Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected and produced at taxpayer expense. Ross Oliver Cheap ******* Aviator |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO. How about that! How recently? Yes, FBO fits, but I think terminal also fits, don't you? I think that a terminal is something that an FBO might or might not have. MacDan at CDW has tie-downs, a school, hangers...and a terminal. These are distinct (with the school actually being in a completely different building). And, of course, the school is relatively unadorned while the FBO is seriously plush. Oddly - in my opinion - the school is where you'd need to go for aviation supplies. The terminal has a pilots' lounge, but if they need a chart they need to visit the other building. [I don't care for the coffee at either location, though, but at least it's less often burned at the terminal grin.] - Andrew |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating regulations. How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder? - Andrew |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:3Uk8e.5463$ha3.4272@trndny02... Morgans wrote: HKY (Hickory NC) has a really nice general aviation terminal. Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO. Not according to their airport diagram! |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:13:25 +0200, Stefan
wrote: Highflyer wrote: A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin. There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns, so be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a spin in IMC. Stefan Among such airplanes that won't stay in a spin is Highflyer's Stinson Reliant. Well, I don't know for sure about his but I do know for sure about my Reliant - after about three turns, it evolves into a spiral dive - I've tried to hold it in a spin and failed. Klein |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
How about that! How recently? Summer, 1995. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:48:00 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ne.com:: Larry Dighera wrote: Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating regulations. How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder? - Andrew Yes. You are correct. I should have been more specific. KLAX has a Special Flight Rules Corridor through the Class B airspace at 3,500' and 4,500' that only requires squawking 1201 and . Part of the requirements for use are tracking the SMO VOR 132 degree radial and having a current VFR Terminal chart in the aircraft. The other charted transition routs also require use of VOR radials. Although the Shoreline transition does not; although charted, it has been effectively rescinded. So, yes, it is operating above the 10,000' ceiling of the KLAX Class B airspace without tracking a radial is within regulations. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:I4E8e.9855$Fm5.2322@trndny09... Morgans wrote: How about that! How recently? Summer, 1995. That was the old place. Not bad, but not great. The new place is fantastic! -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|