VOR routes without VORs

writes:

No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they
also planed to fly higher than the mountain.

There are real pilots who don't plan at all.

Not evident from the crap you post.

What do you think might be evident from what you post?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

I have both, although I haven't been able to get enroute charts for the U.S.,
where I actually fly.

No, Anthony, you don't actually fly. You actually simulate flight using
a game produced by Microsoft.

Mxsmanic,

Not evident from the crap you post.

What do you think might be evident from what you post?


That he knows what he's talking about. It's quite apparent that you
have no idea how ridiculous an impression your posts make.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Apr 16, 8:15 am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
If IFR someone is going to ask you what the hell you are doing if
you are too far off.
If anyone notices.

Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft
is where it is supposed to be.

More to the point, is there anywhere in the US where you would get
assigned an altitude out of range of a VOR if you've filed VOR to VOR?
The lateral range is the question. I don't know if ATC verifies that all VORs
mentioned on the flight plan are in range when they should be.

When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be
3000 feet AGL.

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I have often been assigned altitudes that were less than 3000 agl
within 30 miles of my destination.
I think you must be confusing filing VOR to VOR on an airway with
filing VOR to VOR not on an airway.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No real pilot would plan using a VOR behind a mountain unless they
also planed to fly higher than the mountain.

There are real pilots who don't plan at all.

Ahh, more semantic word games with worthless statements.

Not evident from the crap you post.

What do you think might be evident from what you post?

That I have at least a basic understanding of real flying as opposed
to the crap you post.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

swag wrote:
On Apr 16, 8:15 am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
If IFR someone is going to ask you what the hell you are doing if
you are too far off.
If anyone notices.

Yeah, right, ATC pays no attention to whether or not an IFR aircraft
is where it is supposed to be.

More to the point, is there anywhere in the US where you would get
assigned an altitude out of range of a VOR if you've filed VOR to VOR?
The lateral range is the question. I don't know if ATC verifies that all VORs
mentioned on the flight plan are in range when they should be.

When IFR you are going to be assigned an altitude that will NOT be
3000 feet AGL.

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I have often been assigned altitudes that were less than 3000 agl
within 30 miles of my destination.
I think you must be confusing filing VOR to VOR on an airway with
filing VOR to VOR not on an airway.

No, I was talking about enroute over a distance where the VOR coverage
becomes a factor.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.