Have you ever...

Matt Barrow wrote:

Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really
paying a big tax!!

No, they pay for a big *taxi* to carry all those cases of approach plates.

- Andrew

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 8388e.18726$xL4.8356@attbi_s72::

I would prefer that any changes to the airman's written test primarily
result in increased safety not numbers.

I'm not sure what can be added to a written exam that will increase the
safety of a pilot in the air -- but I'd entertain suggestions.

Perhaps GPS navigation would be an appropriate additional topic for
inclusion in the airman Private written examination. :-)

With the advent of GPS satellite navigation equipped aircraft it seems
more appropriate to _ADD_ GPS related questions to the test.

On the surface this appears more logical than asking about VORs, but asking
about GPS is still testing OPTIONAL knowledge.

Where is the term "optional knowledge" defined? Is everything beyond
airspeed, compass and ball optional in your opinion? Where does the
boundary between 'optional' and 'essential' lie, in your opinion?

To fly, all you really need is a sectional map and a compass -- and
I know guys who fly safely without *those*.

Oh, like the Air Tractor pilot killed in the MAC with a military
training flight recently? :-)

Where do they do that? Certainly not over sprawling urban areas in
marginal visibility. It's beginning to sound like your frame of
reference is the sparely populated plains.

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations. The same is true of transition through KLAX Class B
airspace on the charted transition routes. VOR navigating is
required.

Again, do we want to make flying more accessible, or are we trying to keep
it exclusive?

In the '70s, Cessna, Piper and Beech tried the Country Club marketing
approach to flight instruction and aircraft rental. Their advertising
showed nattily attired upscale 30-something socializing at the FBO,
and generally attempted to shed the grease-stained hanger aspect of
aviation. Today you can see the results of that not insubstantial
effort: nil. It seems, that most folks interested in piloting
aircraft possess courage, desire, intelligence and means beyond the
norm. I have a hard time believing that Joe-sixpack will ever
dominate the ranks. Aviation isn't elitist by design; it's a natural
result of human nature. In its current state, aviation isn't for
everyone. Technology may change that, and when that occurs, easing
airman's testing requirements may be appropriate.

Today, dumbing-down the training criteria to attract the unqualified
seems like a step in the wrong direction destined to fail in an
unpleasant way. The NTSB has announced, that 2004 was general
aviation's safest year yet. I fail to see how eliminating material
from the airman's training curricula will positively impact aviation
safety.

I fear that if we continue to weed people out, we will find
ourselves more and more alone at the airports as the early Baby Boomers --
who make up a huge percentage of active pilots -- start to die out.

Is that an original notion you formed, or is it an agenda supported by
others? Is it in any way related to your aviation-based enterprise?
A US President once said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
Given the fact, that aviation is expected to double or tipple in the
not too distant future, I find a fear of dwindling ranks of airmen
suspicious if not unfounded.

And when that happens, what happens to the FBOs? The avionics guys?
Airport funding?

If the number of active airmen fails to decline due to baby-boomers
failing medical requirements, and safety suffers as a result of
dumbing-down the airman's examination requirements, what do you think
will be the reaction of the regulators and the public? Your
suggestion could as easily backfire as succeed.

We're already fighting to "only" lose one airport every
14 days in this country -- and it will only get worse.

The loss of airports is not a result of a diminishing number of
pilots. It's largely motivated by encroaching homeowners and greedy
developers, not a dearth of pilots.

We need more pilots.

Perhaps, but you have failed to convince me of that allegation, and I
oppose your approach to achieving it. If you want more pilots, you
need to reduce the cost of aviation, not compromise safety.

Sport Pilot will hopefully be the answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

It will at least provide some tangible statistics.

How much to "subscribe" to either NOAA or Jepp approach plates?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:44:11 GMT, (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?


Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
and produced at taxpayer expense.

Ross Oliver
Cheap ******* Aviator

Morgans wrote:


"George Patterson" wrote

Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.

How about that! How recently?

Yes, FBO fits, but I think terminal also fits, don't you?

I think that a terminal is something that an FBO might or might not have.

MacDan at CDW has tie-downs, a school, hangers...and a terminal. These are
distinct (with the school actually being in a completely different
building). And, of course, the school is relatively unadorned while the
FBO is seriously plush.

Oddly - in my opinion - the school is where you'd need to go for aviation
supplies. The terminal has a pilots' lounge, but if they need a chart they
need to visit the other building.

[I don't care for the coffee at either location, though, but at least it's
less often burned at the terminal grin.]

- Andrew

Larry Dighera wrote:

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations.

How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?

- Andrew

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:3Uk8e.5463$ha3.4272@trndny02...
Morgans wrote:

HKY (Hickory NC) has a really nice general aviation terminal.

Been through HKY twice. They called that an FBO.


Not according to their airport diagram!

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:13:25 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

Highflyer wrote:

A spin is STABLE. You cannot dive into the ground at Vne + from a spin.

There are aircraft which go into a spiral dive after a couple of turns,
so be sure to know the spin characteristics fo yours before attempting a
spin in IMC.

Stefan

Among such airplanes that won't stay in a spin is Highflyer's Stinson
Reliant. Well, I don't know for sure about his but I do know for sure
about my Reliant - after about three turns, it evolves into a spiral
dive - I've tried to hold it in a spin and failed.

Klein

Morgans wrote:

How about that! How recently?

Summer, 1995.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:48:00 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ne.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Currently, VFR pilots are prevented from navigating over the top of
KLAX without a VFR chart and VOR receiver without violating
regulations.

How? I've never flown in or seen a chart for the area, but doesn't the
class B have a vertical boundry over which one needs naught but an xponder?

- Andrew


Yes. You are correct. I should have been more specific.

KLAX has a Special Flight Rules Corridor through the Class B airspace
at 3,500' and 4,500' that only requires squawking 1201 and . Part of
the requirements for use are tracking the SMO VOR 132 degree radial
and having a current VFR Terminal chart in the aircraft. The other
charted transition routs also require use of VOR radials. Although
the Shoreline transition does not; although charted, it has been
effectively rescinded.

So, yes, it is operating above the 10,000' ceiling of the KLAX Class B
airspace without tracking a radial is within regulations.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:I4E8e.9855$Fm5.2322@trndny09...
Morgans wrote:

How about that! How recently?

Summer, 1995.

That was the old place. Not bad, but not great.

The new place is fantastic!
--
Jim in NC