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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for practice area outside HPN
I've lately come to the conclusion that the airspace around NYC is just too (expletive) busy. Last night, I wound up tucked inside the triangle formed by Bridgeporrt, Danbury, and Waterbury-Oxford, carefully watching the GPS to make sure I didn't drift into anyone's class D while practicing maneuvers. Last time, I went north of Westchester County, but that on the approach path when there's a South flow. Much further North is Stewart's approach path. Can't go west or south to the yellow parts of the chart. Don't want to be maneuvering over water. Don't want to be in anyone's airpace, rather not be too near a Victor airway, hat to be on someone's approach path, ... Are the any nice quiet, out-of-the-way spots for me to practice lazy 8s, chandelles, steep turns and stalls that doesn't involve doing an (explitive) cross country (not that I object to cross-country time, but my training budget is limited). I'm really beginning to think about renting from Danbury and training North of Putnam Lake. Big problem with that is it's too far to drive to after work, so it limits training time to my already limited weekends. Morris (yes, an on-topic post) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"journeyman" wrote in message
u.com... I've lately come to the conclusion that the airspace around NYC is just too (expletive) busy. Last night, I wound up tucked inside the triangle formed by Bridgeporrt, Danbury, and Waterbury-Oxford, carefully watching the GPS to make sure I didn't drift into anyone's class D while practicing maneuvers. Is that a legal place to practice maneuvers? It's crisscrossed by airways. According to FAR 91.303, you can't be within 4 nm of an airway centerline when you intentionally establish an attitude "not necessary for normal flight". --Gary |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:51:15 GMT, Gary L. Drescher wrote:
"journeyman" wrote in message ru.com... I've lately come to the conclusion that the airspace around NYC is just too (expletive) busy. Last night, I wound up tucked inside the triangle formed by Bridgeporrt, Danbury, and Waterbury-Oxford, carefully watching the GPS to make sure I didn't drift into anyone's class D while practicing maneuvers. Is that a legal place to practice maneuvers? It's crisscrossed by airways. According to FAR 91.303, you can't be within 4 nm of an airway centerline when you intentionally establish an attitude "not necessary for normal flight". Ack. All the more reason I need a better place to practice maneuvers. Guess I'd better file another NASA report. Seriously, I was using the other definition: banking over 60 degrees or pitching +/- 30 degrees, which I now realize is in error. Looking at the text of 91.303, there was nothing abrupt about the maneuvers, so I hope I'm off the hook in case anyone wants to make an issue of it. The chief flight instructor at The Place I Rent From steered me in the direction of Norwalk. That isn't any better. Someone else suggested Croton Point, which is also too close to airways. For that matter, The Place I'm Doing Glider Training is at Randall airport and that's practically underneath an intersection. Wurtsboro isn't any better either. I really hope no-one's too keen on enforcing this rule. Maybe just north of Mahopac? Morris (adding "filed ASRS report" to my shutdown checklist) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
IANAL, but I think any manuever required to pass a certificate could
defensibly be called "necessary for normal flight" so practicing chandelles etc. (required for Commercial) would be OK by 91.303. Can anyone (CFIs?) confirm or deny this? Regards -- Peter -- Peter H. Schmidt Lifting Mind Inc. _/ Speaking \_ 2 Ewell Avenue www.liftingmind.com \ for myself / Lexington, MA 02421 fax: 781 863-8858 tel: 781 863-5200 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter H. Schmidt" wrote:
IANAL, but I think any manuever required to pass a certificate could defensibly be called "necessary for normal flight" so practicing chandelles etc. (required for Commercial) would be OK by 91.303. Can anyone (CFIs?) confirm or deny this? Spins are required for the CFI-Airplane rating. Maybe also on the PP-Glider test? I doubt anybody would consider a spin "necessary for normal flight". On the other hand, the airspace around here (New York) is so chock-a-block full of airways, if practicing stalls or chandelles in an airway is a FAR violation, I would imagine we've got a lot of violating going on every day in this neck of the woods. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
Alternatively, on the other side of the river, staying north of the Class B boundary, and west towards Greenwood Lake. Hey! That's our (CDW) practice area. We call the flat area "the onion fields", although I've no idea what actually grows there. It's nice for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that 132.75 is typically unbusy enough to lend us an extra eye. - Andrew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Patrick AFB, NASA-KSC Area Log - Tuesday 09 March 2004 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | March 10th 04 06:15 AM |
Patrick AFB Area Log - Friday, 27 Feb 2004 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 06:15 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Patrick AFB Area Log, Monday 30 June 2003 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | July 1st 03 06:37 AM |