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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.