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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... I think what Antoņio was asking for was a regulation to support the notion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with ATC instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are at least tangentially relevant). From FAA Order 7110.65: "Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order." http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-1 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote: I think what Anto=F1io was asking for was a regulation to support the not= ion that a pilot can or must refuse an ATC instruction just because compliance would violate the FARs. That is, what regulation says that other regulations take precedence over 91.123b (which requires compliance with = ATC instructions, except if there's an emergency need to deviate)? As far as I can tell, there's no such regulation (although AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c are at least tangentially relevant). --Gary Exactly. However, AIM 3-2-1d is somewhat disquieting... "d.VFR requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91)" Antonio |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: "Anto=F1io" wrote in message oups.com... Not sure where the Duwamish is however, If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular bas= is, it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport. I stand behoved. looking at the Seattle terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south. You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg. Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your recall is inaccurate. So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the clearance? Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever reason, including regulatory" ? As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is lik= ely to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is n= ot a clearance to fly into the Class B. That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with "cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..." ? The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells y= ou to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of th= at regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that you need a clearance. The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision. It tells me nothing positive. And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind. No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b) the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have. You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the situation. The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind = up on the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's all. They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all up to you. I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called out. I provided several other options that were available to you. Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing ! Even from a safety standpoint, there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if t= hat were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It wou= ld be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L; essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you nev= er descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final. I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call you up and ask, "What are you doing?". Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about 30 seconds. Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing = and why. You would never have been able to do that this particular day without stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow. Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one= 's downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace, To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens all the time there. If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to = me that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor -- especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns th= ere until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters. I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my question was about. Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-) Antonio |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Antoņio" wrote in message
oups.com... Peter Duniho wrote: It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? Antoņio, the FAA *will* expect you to override ATC instructions if compliance would violate the FARs, even though the FARs themselves are contradictory on that point. Have a look at AIM 4-4-1a,b and 4-4-6c. Even though the AIM does not set forth regulations as such, it does specify how the FAA expects you to interpret the regulations. (And even though 4-4-1 and 4-4-6 talk about clearances rather than ATC instructions in general, the same reasoning applies to non-clearance instructions too.) If you want an official opinion on this question, you can email your local FSDO. --Gary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 28 May 2005 18:00:43 -0700, Antoņio wrote:
No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. Incorrect Antonio. As soon as you receive your IFR clearance, you are cleared into Bravo. ATC makes room for your entry based on your IFR flight plan. The beauty of IFR is that all airspace becomes "transparent" as you are cleared from wheels up to wheels down. Allen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Antoņio" wrote in message oups.com... No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. While operating on an IFR flight plan you have a clearance. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? That you fly a proper pattern? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I instructed at BFI for twenty years...and I was never concerned that I
would bust the Class B when doing left traffic to 31L. If you fly at 800 feet, stay over the Duwamish, and turn before you get to 405, there is nothing to be worried about. Bob Gardner "Antoņio" wrote in message oups.com... Peter Duniho wrote: "Antoņio" wrote in message oups.com... Not sure where the Duwamish is however, If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular basis, it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport. I stand behoved. looking at the Seattle terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south. You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg. Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your recall is inaccurate. So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the clearance? Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever reason, including regulatory" ? As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is likely to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is not a clearance to fly into the Class B. That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with "cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..." ? The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells you to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of that regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that you need a clearance. The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision. It tells me nothing positive. And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind. No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b) the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have. You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the situation. The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind up on the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's all. They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all up to you. I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called out. I provided several other options that were available to you. Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing ! Even from a safety standpoint, there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if that were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It would be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L; essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you never descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final. I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call you up and ask, "What are you doing?". Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about 30 seconds. Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing and why. You would never have been able to do that this particular day without stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow. Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace, To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens all the time there. If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to me that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor -- especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns there until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters. I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my question was about. Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-) Antonio |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Antoņio" wrote in message
oups.com... I stand behoved. Good. That's a start. Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your recall is inaccurate. I have current charts, and I examine them on a regular basis. They support my statements. That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with "cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? Yes, if you do what the controller says, you are following ATC instructions. However, that has nothing to do with whether you are cleared into the Class B airspace. If I am following ATC instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..." ? You should not. Especially when the Class D controller's instruction doesn't require you to fly into the Class B airspace. The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision. It tells me nothing positive. That's silly. Using that logic, every single regulation would require a statement "you must comply with this regulation". The absence of any other exception to 91.131(a)(1) means you need to comply with 91.131(a)(1). And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind. You would need to deviate in order to avoid violating 91.131(a)(1). An instruction from ATC is not a free pass to violate the FARs. No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. My understanding is that we are talking about a specific situation here, in which an IFR flight plan is not part of the scenario. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? They can (and do) ask that as pilot in command you take final authority for the safety and legality of your flight. FAR 91.3 You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the situation. First of all, the deviations are purely hypothetical. There was no reason to enter the Class B in this particular instance, so for you to get hung up over alternative methods of avoiding the Class B is a bit disingenuous. Secondly, I find it mind-boggling that you would rather fly into airspace protected specifically for the purpose of keeping you away from airliners landing at Sea-Tac airport, than to take the lesser risk and negotiate your way around the Class D airspace. None of the maneuvers I speak of are particularly dangerous, certainly not compared to flying through the final approach of an airliner. The mandate to stay out of Class B airspace is not simply regulatory. It is there for a reason: to keep you from being running over by airliners. For you to complain about potential safety hazards when avoiding Class B airspace as a justification for flying through Class B airspace without a clearance is just plain dumb. I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called out. No, actually they don't. They provide additional services as they are able to, but their responsibility ends right where I said it does. Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing ! I'm guessing that if I ever did, you wouldn't even notice. There's a lot more room up there, even at Boeing Field, than you apparently think. I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call you up and ask, "What are you doing?". I have spent plenty of time in the pattern at Boeing Field. Yes, it's a busy airport. But there is still LOTS of room in the air. I have had several go-arounds caused by a variety of reasons, and there's lots of room above the airport to maneuver safely. Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about 30 seconds. Assuming airspeed of 90 knots, that puts you in the Class B airspace only 3/4 mile from the runway end. The only way for that to happen is for you be on a VERY wide downwind. You would never have been able to do that this particular day without stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow. The difficulty in reporting your actions to ATC should not cause you fail to take appropriate actions. "Aviate, navigate, communicate". There's a reason the radio is the last item in that list. To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens all the time there. It's true, Class B violations and near-violations do happen frequently. I know one person who, while a student, managed to bust the TCA (as it was called at the time) twice. But it doesn't happen to people who pay attention to where the airspace is and where they are. There is nothing about the airspace configuration that makes it impossible to fly normal patterns while remaining outside the Class B. I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my question was about. The best way to handle this particular situation is to fly a downwind that doesn't take you into the Class B. If you are not uncomfortable flying in tight quarters, then you should have no trouble at all flying a downwind that doesn't take you into the Class B. So, which is it? Are you comfortable flying in tight quarters, or was it impossible for you to avoid the Class B while obeying the ATC instruction to extend your downwind? Only one of those two possibilities can be true. Many other pilots manage to extend their downwind on left traffic to 31L every day, without flying into the Class B. The only pilots who find this impossible are those who are not comfortable staying close to the runway. My comment about flying tight quarters is based simply on observed facts. If you find it condescending (see below), that's your problem. I didn't even say that you ARE uncomfortable, just that if you are (and thus explaining why we are even having this thread in the first place), you could seek more training. Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your posting style. You should review the definition of "condescension". The mere fact that I point out the error in your statements does not make me condescending. As long as we're criticizing each other for personality defects, you should probably review the five hazardous attitudes. "Anti-authority" in particular. You are so convinced that you have every right to bust the Class B, that you refuse to listen to someone trying to explain to you that there was no reason to bust the Class B in the first place, nor that you have the right to just go around violating the FARs at a whim. Pete |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Did your instructor teach you slow flight? Slowing down and hanging out some
flaps would have given the Arrow plenty of room without your having to extend your downwind. That's one of the reasons maneuvering at minimum allowable airspeed is taught. BTW, the provision in the 7110.65 requiring controllers to coordinate airspace transits applies to controllers who are providing radar services. Somehow, I don't think that the BFI controller was providing radar services. Bob Gardner "Antoņio" wrote in message oups.com... Peter Duniho wrote: "Antoņio" wrote in message oups.com... Not sure where the Duwamish is however, If you are going to fly into Boeing Field, especially if on a regular basis, it behooves you to learn the major landmarks in the area. The Duwamish River is the large waterway that runs along the west side of the airport. I stand behoved. looking at the Seattle terminal, it appears you'd have to be wingtip to wingtip on the downwind with those on final if you are to avoid class B to the south. You greatly overestimate the size of an airplane. I am no longer based at Boeing Field, but I was for several years. I can tell you with absolute confidence that there is no safety hazard presented while still remaining outside the Class B, even if you do extend your downwind leg. Obviously wrong. You'd better check the charts again as it appears your recall is inaccurate. So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the clearance? Can you quote me a reg that backs up your statement about "...whatever reason, including regulatory" ? As has already been pointed out to you, you need a specific clearance into the Class B. The only clearance that the tower controller at KBFI is likely to offer is a clearance to land on the runway there. That clearance is not a clearance to fly into the Class B. That is where I still have a bit of confusion, Peter. If the controlled tells me "enter a left downwind for..." and follows it with "cleared to land; follow the Arrow ...." which is still a couple of miles out...am I not following ATC instructions? If I am following ATC instructions, should I not expect the two controllers ( at Bravo and Delta ) to be communicating without me having to break in and remind the controller, "Hey fellah...I am about to bust B...why don't you..." ? The relevant regulation can be found in Part 91, in the section on Class B airspace. You'll note that there's no "unless a tower controller tells you to extend your downwind into the Class B airspace" provision. The absence of such a provision tells you that you need to comply with the rest of that regulation to enter Class B, and the rest of the regulation tells you that you need a clearance. The absence of a provision tells me there is an absence of a provision. It tells me nothing positive. And how does the absence of "such a provision" indicate that I should deviate from ATC instructions if I am about to enter class Bravo? I was told, "FOLLOW THE ARROW"...so I followed the Arrow. The safe timing of this action demanded that I fly a little futher downwind. No clearance, no entry. Not necessarilly true in other cases--such as while on an IFR flight plan. It's your job as pilot in command to follow the regulations. I followed ATC instructions. What more can the FAA ask of me? Your only out would be to declare an emergency (which provides you with the right to deviate from the regulations to the extent necessary to resolve the emergency) but a) that seems a little extreme to me, and b) the FAA may well take issue with whether flying into the Class B was necessary in order to resolve whatever emergency you claimed to have. You named other outs earlier: A 360, an upwind crossover, a turn upwind to a go around, and other "deviations" which I was not directly told to do. To do these manuvers would have been dangerous, given the situation. The controllers is supposed to arrange things so that you don't wind up on the same part of the runway at the same time as someone else. That's all. They may try to assist with other issues, but ultimately those are all up to you. I think this is an oversimplification. The controllers have many options and responsibilities that go beyond just what you have called out. I provided several other options that were available to you. Yes, I know. I sure hope I never have to follow you into BFI as you decide to do a 360 on the downwind for better spacing ! Even from a safety standpoint, there should be no significant problem. A 360 would only be even theoretically problematic if you had traffic following you, but even if that were the case, "see and avoid" provides sufficient seperation. By flying upwind, I don't mean you have to fly the left traffic upwind leg. It would be perfectly fine and appropriate to turn upwind and fly over runway 31L; essentially, it would be a short approach plus a go-around, where you never descend low enought to conflict with traffic on final. I think you might be simply positioning here. You should rethink these maneuvers. In my opinion, they do nothing to increase the safety in congested airspace like BFI. You just don't have time to communicate your intentions. You leave the controller with the necessity to call you up and ask, "What are you doing?". Keep in mind that what transpired from the time I was at the end of the runway to turning base behind the Arrow (albeit a bit late) was about 30 seconds. Whatever you do, it's important to tell the controller what you're doing and why. You would never have been able to do that this particular day without stepping on others and disrupting the whole flow. Fortunately, this is all moot. It is entirely possible to extend one's downwind at Boeing Field without flying into the Class B airspace, To be fair I will check out your assertions further. However, this does not alter the fact that the controller called me up to mention the class B airspace ahead. I would bet you a smug look that this happens all the time there. If you are uncomfortable with flying in tight quarters, that suggests to me that you are used to flying a downwind leg that is as much as a mile away from the airport. That's pretty far away anywhere, but at KBFI that just won't work. You need to be flying close in to the airport, and be comfortable making short, tight turns in the pattern. If this doesn't describe you, you sould probably spend some time with an instructor -- especially one who is familiar with KBFI -- and practice your patterns there until you ARE comfortable with the close quarters. I am not "uncomfortable flying in tight quarters". I am uncomfortable when I don't know the best way to handle a situation. Which is what my question was about. Your condescension is unwarranted and often characteristic of your posting style. Perhaps you should spend some time with a psychologist--one that is familiar with antisocial behavior-- and practice being nice until you are comfortable in close quarters.If this doesn't describe you...well, just ignore me. ;-) Antonio |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com, Antoņio wrote:
So the fact that I was under ATC instruction does not give me the clearance? Absolutely right. The ATC instruction you had did not include the phrase "...cleared into Class Bravo" so you weren't cleared. Treat the class B like you would a cloud. If there had been a cloud starting exactly where the class B started and filling the entire volume of the class B airspace, as you were (I presume) operating under VFR, what would you have done as you approached the cloud you didn't have an IFR clearance to enter? -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Class III vs. Class II medical | G. Sylvester | Piloting | 11 | February 8th 05 06:41 PM |
One Design viability? | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 41 | December 10th 03 03:27 AM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Home Built | 78 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |
RF interference issue again (esp. for E Drucker and Jim Weir and other RF wizards) | Snowbird | Owning | 77 | December 3rd 03 09:10 PM |