Questions on VFR sectionals and TACs

writes:

Being a pilot in the Phoenix area I can at least help you out with that
one. Camelback road can easily be identified by it's proximity to Camelback
mountain, (from where it gets it's name) , and the mountain is easily identified
by it's shape (take a wild guess as to what that is !).

It would be easy enough to find by the mountain, but the street goes
on and on--and all streets in Phoenix and the burbs (almost) are in a
grid. I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air, but it
seems like they'd all tend to look alike after a while. Grand Avenue
I'm sure I could spot. The freeways I could spot. Other major
streets might be difficult unless I could recognize things along the
way. And I'd only recognize things because I know the area; if I were
coming in as a stranger, that wouldn't help. I don't know the layout
of Los Angeles very well, for example, and finding Wilshire Boulevard
from the air seems like it would be difficult.

The other streets to the north and south are less easily identified,
unless you are familiar with the area, however they can be identified
by the locations of the high rise buildings. Most of these are
clustered around central avenue, the uptown ones begin near Thomas,
the downtown ones are noticeably seperated to the south.

But if you're not from the area, and they aren't identified with
pictures or something on a chart, how would you recognize them? How
would you know where they are clustered? The TAC for KPHX just makes
some generic mention of buildings at various points.

One comment I have to make here is it seems you ask these questions
from a belief that pilots just take off and go buzzing around with
no prior thought or preflight planning.

Some may, some may not. I try to plan carefully in advance but things
seem to get ahead of me when I'm actually flying and I lose track of
where I am or overshoot my waypoints while I search around for a
landmark.

Most maps if you look closely enough will have a pretty clearly defined
vfr waypoint on them, that you can use to identify your location on
the map, (in Phoenix look for the Beeline Y or ASU or train tracks
along Grand avenue or Boswell hospital on the west side.

It would be interesting to actually try Phoenix from the air. I know
the city very well on the ground, and I recognize things in satellite
photos, but I don't know how that would compare to seeing it from
altitude and obliquely.

My sim reproduces the general layout, but not with the level of detail
you'd see in real life. Still, with the landmarks that are there, I
can get around okay and I don't get lost--but if someone asked me "are
you in Class B airspace at this particular point," I might not know
without looking at the moving map, unless I were quite far from the
borders. And from what I read ATC gets really miffed if you stray
into Class B without a clearance.

In short I guess what I'm trying to say is if you are unfamiliar with
an area, it simply means that your preflight planning will, by necessity
be more thorough.

I hope that would suffice. Maybe I'm just not good at recognizing
things on the fly. Or perhaps I will become less stressed about it
with practice.

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

Peter Clark writes:

He doesn't. He gets a 1000'/1NM prohibited area. It's when the other
one comes to visit that the standard TFR appears, which (at least in
the ones I have) is charted by the absence of ground color. I see
someone else mentioned that the new chart which takes effect Thursday
doesn't have this feature any more. Course, the TFR can still appear.

It's fortunate that cars and trucks cannot possibly carry bombs or
terrorists, and that the only threats come from above.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,



No ****, is that right? You don't fly?

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Mxsmanic wrote:

I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,



No ****, is that right? You don't fly?

Newsp. Mr Mxs is a video flyer, simulation only... and he has been
questioning us for a month or more..
and then tends to spout off on topics that he thinks he knows better than a
rated pilot.

B

BT wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Mxsmanic wrote:

I haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,



No ****, is that right? You don't fly?


Newsp. Mr Mxs is a video flyer, simulation only... and he has been
questioning us for a month or more..
and then tends to spout off on topics that he thinks he knows better than a
rated pilot.



You should read up a little before you post this stuff.

Mxsmanic,

haven't ever tried to identify all this from the air,


Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have and SHUT
THE F... UP instead of telling them what they do everyday is
impossible?

Jeeze, I tried. Again. Note to self: Idiot!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...

Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
alone is dangerous. I attempt to extract a consensus and/or I look up
whatever they say to see if it is confirmed by multiple sources. If
someone proves to be regularly correct, I may develop more of a
tendency to believe him at his word, although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.

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

Mxsmanic,

although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.


Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

Besides, what you describe is not what you do. What you do is to doubt
other people from your own experience - without having any.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

I don't know if Stalin said it, but Reagan certainly did, in his
farewell address on January 11, 1989:

"It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's
still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see."

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:


Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...


Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
alone is dangerous.

So why are you here? You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what
people write. That's the definition of insane.