Near miss from space junk.

On Apr 2, 9:35 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-04-02, chris wrote:

As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
things I actually need definitely work.

You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
cross checks).

The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
not be left out of that learning!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

I know roughly how to use a VOR and have used them occasionally, but
for 90% of my flying it isn't necessary, so I wouldn't care if I ended
up in an aircraft without one... I think DME is far more useful to
the sort of flying I do than VOR and I much prefer to fly one of the a/
c we have that has DME. Of course the plane I am about to do my big
trip in has a DME but for as long as I can remember it's been
placarded inop

On Apr 3, 12:37 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message

...

On 2007-04-02, chris wrote:
As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
things I actually need definitely work.

You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
cross checks).

The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
not be left out of that learning!

You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
useless.

I dunno about other countries, but especially over the nastier parts
of NZ there aren't a whole lot of navaids, period. VOR's are nice for
making sure you are on track for one of the main centres airports, but
there's a lot of airfields around the place with no navaids, and even
going to one with a VOR, quite often high terrain and low weather
makes them useless for a VFR pilot

On Apr 3, 12:39 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"chris" wrote in message

oups.com...

As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
things I actually need definitely work.

I haven't seen this link post in a thought you might enjoy it. It's VOR
simulator.

http://www.visi.com/~mim/nav/

Thanks!

On Apr 3, 5:50 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Maxwell writes:
You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
useless.

If the weather suddenly turns bad, you may sorely regret not having a VOR that
works.

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

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked? Cripes!! What about terrain?? You are VFR here,
remember, and there could well be a big hill in your path back to the
VOR. I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

On Apr 3, 5:56 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dylan Smith writes:
Why is it therefore deemed not only acceptable but entirely normal
that there is no in-flight fuel cross check in the form of a gauge that
at least gives a reasonable indication of how much fuel you have left?

Some pilots apparently love aviation so much that they're willing to die in
the cockpit.

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

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!! In a few days I will be
flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

chris wrote:



I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

I could dip the tanks of my 182 and it was very accurate. I cannot dip
the tanks of my Bonanza due to the shape. There is a tab to determine
full tanks, 35 and 30 gallons. Less than 30 gallons there is no way to
positively know.

chris writes:

You are saying that you would fly into bad weather if you had a VOR
that worked?

No, I'm saying that if I got stuck in bad weather, I'd be very thankful for
instruments that worked.

I don't think it's prudent to say "I'll never get stuck in IMC, so I don't
need working instruments." The more instruments I have, the better, even if I
never plan to do anything but fly VFR in the severest of clear weather.

What about terrain??

I'd have a full set of charts, too. Everyone has a full set of charts on
board at all times ... right?

You are VFR here, remember, and there could well be a big hill in
your path back to the VOR.

If I'm stuck in IMC, at least a VOR gives me a vague idea of where I am, which
is a lot better than not knowing at all. If I know I'm on radial xxx from VOR
yyy, and I know the area, I can get a pretty good idea of whether or not I'm
clear of terrain. And of course I have my charts.

I would suggest that using some amount of self taught knowledge
about using VORs to justify flying into worse weather than you would
otherwise, sounds dodgy to me!!!

I'd avoid IMC with anything less than a full suite of avionics certified for
instrument flight and in perfect working order. Even then, I'd probably avoid
all but the tamest IMC (e.g., fog or other low visibility).

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

chris writes:

That's a rather negative way to look at it!!!

Better safe than sorry, I say.

In a few days I will be
flying for 2 1/2 hours on a cross country. I will have 4 1/2 hours
fuel. That doesn't sound reckless to me!!!

If you really have the fuel you think you have, and if you really consume it
as slowly as you think you do, perhaps not.

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

On Apr 3, 10:01 am, Newps wrote:
chris wrote:

I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

I could dip the tanks of my 182 and it was very accurate. I cannot dip
the tanks of my Bonanza due to the shape. There is a tab to determine
full tanks, 35 and 30 gallons. Less than 30 gallons there is no way to
positively know.

On our club's new Alphas there is no way at present to dip the
(single) tank so we need a fuel gauge that works. I don't know about
our aircraft but on the (slightly) older Robins I had some experience
with (same design as the Alphas) the fuel gauge senders seem to fail
with alarming regularity.

And on the older 152's we used to have the fuel gauges were all over
the show, and because the aircraft are so old, Cessna have changed the
system which would have required several thousand dollars per aircraft
to replace the whole fuel indicating system, so it was never done.

chris writes:

I would like fuel gauges that work, no question. But I have also
heard of accidents where people rely on their gauges and fail to dip
the tanks and run out of fuel because the gauges aren't accurate.

The easy solution, then, is to have both. And whichever figure is lower is
the one you use.

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