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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
"Kev" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 16, 4:20 am, Nomen Nescio wrote: Jesus F**kin' Christ!!! Will you buy a f**kin' book on remedial piloting? Or go to the library? Or borrow a book from these "Airline Pilots" that you say you know? 90% of your idiotic questions could be answered in an hour or 2 of reading. I mean, ****.......When I went for my Private license, I did no ground school and needed to ask no inane questions on usenet. I bought the Piper Private Pilot Manual and a copy of the FAR/AIM on a Friday. Read and studied it on Saturday and Sunday, and then went and took my written test on Monday. It ain't that f**kin' hard. And with you "superior" intellect, Sure, you can do that for the FAA test. But the extra knowledge that covers most of flying is something gained over years of extra study, magazine reading, forum postings, personal experiences, etc. The rest of us are actually interested in the careful answers some people give to Mx's questions. (This doesn't mean we're interested in his followups, however.) In either case, we're *not* at all interested in your foul mouthed responses. Kev you should be able to learn things in a day. Yet you've been nothing more than an ignorant, chattering monkey on this group for months. Add a book on instrument flying, and you'll know 75% of what you need to know about IFR. The other 25%, while crucial to successful instrument flight, you will NEVER learn 'cause it's gotta be learned in a REAL plane. And you will never even learn what that 25% is without getting in a REAL plane. THREE F**KIN' books, pal. If you won't do that, you're done here since I've noticed that the people here who DO know have mostly stopped seriously answering your questions. Most of the ones who are trying to answer you, now, don't know ****. And, funny, being the genius that you are, those are the answers you accept. But, of course, it really won't matter what answer you get because you're only playing a game. Make up your own answer and call it a simulated usenet reply. Then take your question to rec.aviation.student and post them yourself. All this chatter about things every pilot already knows is clearly off topic in this forum. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
On Apr 16, 8:04 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft is where it is supposed to be. You can be IFR without being in communication with ATC, and you can be out of radar range even when you are communicating with ATC. So there may not be anyone who knows where you are besides yourself. Which means that if you don't know your own position yourself, you have a problem. When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be 3000 feet AGL. When you are IFR in a small aircraft you're not going to be assigned FL330. There may be obstacles between you and a VOR, or you may simply be out of range. Under IFR, the Minimum Enroute Altitude of a victor airway (depicted on the IFR enroute chart) assures VOR coverage. So when it's really important, you have that information readily available. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
If you are flying VOR to VOR on an airway the reception has been
tested. If you are flying an off airway route than you use 40 miles as the maximum distance from a VOR that you can receive a signal. If you are off an airway you will fly at or above to minimum off airway obstacle clearance altitude between you and the VOR so the VOR will not be blocked by an obstacle. The altitudes and distances can be found on the enroute charts. As someone else already pointed out if you are flying off an airway you will have to use the AF/D to determine if you can get VOR reception in the direction and altitude you will be heading. If this sounds more involved than you are use to, it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and nobody would buy it. I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation required to perform them. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
ZikZak writes:
Under IFR, the Minimum Enroute Altitude of a victor airway (depicted on the IFR enroute chart) assures VOR coverage. So when it's really important, you have that information readily available. I keep hoping that SkyVector will start providing enroute IFR charts someday, as well as sectionals and TACs. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
ArtP writes:
If this sounds more involved than you are use to, it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and nobody would buy it. Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the way. I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation required to perform them. I'm making progress, little by little. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft is where it is supposed to be. You can be IFR without being in communication with ATC, and you can be out of radar range even when you are communicating with ATC. So there may not be anyone who knows where you are besides yourself. Which means that if you don't know your own position yourself, you have a problem. When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be 3000 feet AGL. When you are IFR in a small aircraft you're not going to be assigned FL330. There may be obstacles between you and a VOR, or you may simply be out of range. If you file VOR to VOR, the route has probably been flown many thousands of times for decades. If there were a problem with the route/altitude, someone would have noticed decades ago. And? And... from the above you haven't a clue about real flying. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:14:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the way. What MSFS does not simulate is the training required to learn what documentation is required, how to use it, how to file, what are your legal limitations, how your equipment works, what to do if it doesn't, etc. If you are really serious about learning spend a few bucks on an enroute chart and buy a book that will tell you how to read it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
Mxsmanic wrote:
ArtP writes: If this sounds more involved than you are use to, it is because it is. If MSFS simulated all aspects of flying people would down rate the game for having too steep a learning curve and nobody would buy it. Actually, MSFS does simulate such things; that's how I became aware of the problem, and that's what prompted me to ask the question. I noticed that I was out of range of some of the VORs I had planned to use, and sometimes they would come and go at lower altitudes as things (like mountains) got in the way. No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they also planed to fly higher than the mountain. I like MSFS for certain things: IFR approach procedures, CRM, and even landing, but you can't practice those things unless you know what they are, and have all of the documentation required to perform them. I'm making progress, little by little. Not evident from the crap you post. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
VOR routes without VORs
ArtP writes:
What MSFS does not simulate is the training required to learn what documentation is required, how to use it, how to file, what are your legal limitations, how your equipment works, what to do if it doesn't, etc. No simulator simulates training. If you are really serious about learning spend a few bucks on an enroute chart and buy a book that will tell you how to read it. I have both, although I haven't been able to get enroute charts for the U.S., where I actually fly. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
where to see routes on internet? | Bejeeber | Piloting | 26 | October 31st 06 06:05 PM |
Substitute Routes - what exactly are they? | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | July 12th 04 02:55 AM |
Preferred Routes on the net | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 2 | March 15th 04 12:32 AM |
website for airmet VORs | epsalant | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | February 16th 04 12:08 AM |
Teaching VORs / ADFs | BoDEAN | Piloting | 6 | January 7th 04 03:43 PM |