KCHD to KMYF

writes:

Convenience in a pre-GPS world and derived from A-N courses in a pre-VOR
world.

You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously you have a problem with airways, or
at least you have since I suggested one.

I see airways as providing guaranteed levels of obstacle clearance and navaid
reception. Routing is simplified by following pre-established airways as
opposed to making every flight one of a kind.

In the VOR world, the ambiguity's in VOR accuracy spreads people laterally
across a Victor airway.

In the GPS world, the accuracy of GPS puts everyone right down the center
line of a Victor airway.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you near a VOR?

If you cannot be bothered to see and avoid or use radar flight following, you
can navigate by VOR and benefit from the inaccuracy to which you allude.

You'll have the same problem with GPS when navigating anywhere, including to
arbitrary published waypoints.

On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Which situation is intrinsically safer as you navigate alone in your little
airplane?

How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?
How many instances of controlled flight into terrain have occurred off
airways?

Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
airway is that I suggested it. If I had suggested direct GPS, you'd have a
field day with that, especially if I suggested flying through restricted
areas. But your real objective is to try and invalidate whatever I say,
whether it makes sense or not. And it irritates you all the more when what I'm
saying makes sense.

The thing is, I almost always make sense, because I research and study and
look things up, instead of inventing things off the top of my head. I just
repeat what authoritative and reliable sources provide, which pretty much
guarantees that I'll always be right. If you were able to separate the message
from the messenger, you would understand this.

writes:

So would be NYL if it were a VORTAC as shown by FlightPrep and it would
be a shorter VOR to VOR route, if it existed, and you wouldn't be on V66,
you would be close to it.

That doesn't answer my question. BZA is right on V66, it's part of the airway.
NYL is a few miles away. Even if NYL were a VORTAC, why would you route your
flight off-airway over NYL, instead of staying on the airway and overflying
BZA? Especially since NYL is in a MOA, and BZA is not. And the semi-direct
route KCHD.NYL.KMYF is actually slightly over 2 miles longer than the route
KCHD.BZA.KMYF. It doesn't make sense.

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
to think about it.

writes:

So you just fly along in Class G and unilaterally declare yourself to be
flying IFR?

If both you and the aircraft are certified for instrument flight, yes.

See FAR 91.173.

Class E has the exact same provision by definition since by definition it
starts at 1,200 AGL.

No. There is no guarantee that you will not encounter obstacles or terrain
simply because you are in Class E airspace. On an airway, however, as long as
you remain within the volume of the airway, at or above the minimum altitudes
prescribed for that segment of the airway, you won't hit anything.

By definition, Class E starts at 14,500 feet, although in practice the floor
is usually lowered to 1200 feet AGL. However, it can also start at the
surface, which means that you can hit obstacles extending into Class E
airspace.

The point is absent a radar altimeter, you can not tell from navaids
whether or not you are above the lower bounds of either Class E or a
Victor airway.

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes, which you can heed with an
ordinary barometric altimeter. Above these altitudes, you're safe.
Ground-based navaids do not provide altitude information. GPS altitude is
generally unreliable.

What provides obstacle clearance during the day is looking out the window
and at night paying close attention to the Sectional.

I hope you leave generous margins in the latter case.

Or you can fly IFR and use the published minimum altitudes, which are very
generous (so much so that they can be problematic for tiny airplanes in some
areas of the country).

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

V66 is no more safe or efficient than any other legal route.

V66, like all Victor airways, place limits on obstacles, whereas off-airway
navigation does not. If you follow an airway at or above the prescribed
minimum altitudes, you won't hit anything. When you are off-airway, terrain
avoidance is your problem.

Terrain avoidance is always your problem and it makes no difference whether
you are on or off of a Victor airway.

In both cases you have to look at the Sectional and see what the minimum
altitude is for the route.

Nonsense, you are sitting in front of a computer playing a game.

No, I played chess later. Landed safely in KSAN, parked the Citation over by
Landmark.

Delusional.

It is impossible to do anything unsafe in a computer simulation of flight.

No matter what you do, you are still sitting in a chair in front of a
computer screen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

On an airway, you know that if you maintain a certain altitude, you won't hit
any obstacles or terrain. Off-airway, you have to try to determine that from
low-resolution charts, for your entire route.

Obviously you don't really know how to read a Sectional and you have to
determine the minimum safe altitude from the Sectional whether you are on
or off of a Victor airway.

How many midair collisions have occurred along airways and at VORs thus far?

Enough that there have been several articles about the subject.

Let's be honest: The only reason you have a problem with flying along an
airway is that I suggested it.

Nope, the problem I have is you seeme to be convinced that using a Victor
airway has some magical properties that guarantee's safety.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Oh well ... time to fly again. I have two Citations parked at KSAN; I guess I
could fly one back to Sky Harbor. My route would be POGGI2 IPL J18 MOHAK
GEELA3, like so many other flights by others, although I'm sure you'd
disapprove. I've flown the route by following Interstate 8 sometimes (not in a
Citation), but it's tedious. A C152 is really slow and doesn't let you rest
for a moment (no autopilot), but I did that once, just for practice. I'll have
to think about it.

Yep, time to sit back in the chair in your room in front of the computer
screen and delude yourself into believing you are flying.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Victor airways have published minimum altitudes,

Yep, published on the sectional the same as any other route.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote

There is nothing "wrong" with flying Victor airways.

The issue is the assignment by MX of some mystical qualities of "safeness"
to them that doesn't exist.

MX may be partly right, often.

Thing is, he will always _ _ ALWAYS _ _ end up turning the conversation
around to make you argue a point that is of no importance _ _ JUST _ _ to
prove you wrong.

ALWAYS ! ! !

Can anyone disagree with that?

The point is, why bother, when you know it is coming? Can anyone think of
one good reason? Just one?
--
Jim in NC

On May 4, 1:16*pm, Tiger Boi
wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 10:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
On May 3, 11:37*am, Kimmy Boyer wrote:

Here we have two utter morons in a debate...over who is the bigger
moron.

Neither is a moron. I should know since I am one.

Dadd(ie) did you tell everyone why you shot me in the head?
--
Tiger Boi - Cold, Dead, Ain't Coming Back
Former Kat Of Mark(ie) The Nutzoid ****sack

That's real mature of you Ari. I'm sure all the pilots
here will consult you opinion on aviation matters.
Yeah, your opinion really counts in rec.ava.piloting.
You're what...10 yrs.old?

---
Mark

On May 4, 4:55*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
.. *There's nothing magic about actually
flying a real airplane.

****, there's nothing NOT magic about actually
flying a real plane. It's a rush.

---
Mark