WannFly
Final Approach
Fly under 3000' AGL problem solved.
That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly under 3000' AGL problem solved.
That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow
But if you stay away from highways, you avoid most of the amateurs below 1000 AGL.That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Possibly, but here is what I'm implying.
Take for example a flight that from A to B gives a course of 015deg, if you go direct. Instead, you fly from fix to fix. The first waypoint from the origin airport places the aircraft on 050 and then after that, the next leg is 355deg. Although some of route puts the aircraft on an Even/Odd course, they could still file for an Odd altitude since the straight line distance is 015. The leg flown from Origin to XYZ VOR on 050, would not require that aircraft to fly at an Odd altitude and then change to an Even altitude once they pass XYZ and then fly to the next fix on a 355deg.
Catch my drift?
It's just a matter of time until the reg reads, "If the magenta line is........
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
After reading through this thread, I definitely see the value of going IFR and just going what the nice ATC person says to do...
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
That’ll work 99.9% of the time and 0.01% of the time will get you killed. Maybe higher.
Everybody raise your hands who has had a controller vector them toward terrain and then forget about them until they said something...
Me: Raises hand.
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
You mean like the regulations, as posted in post number 1?
I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
You mean like the regulations, as posted in post number 1?
I took his post as sarcasm.
Nah, we never do sarcasm here.I took his post as sarcasm.
Never is a word that should never be used, because it's never true.Nah, we never do sarcasm here.
I've never seen a living Tyrannosaurus rex.Never is a word that should never be used, because it's never true.
I'd believe you if you hadn't said "never". But now I think you've been to the edge of the flat earth and peeked at the underside.I've never seen a living Tyrannosaurus rex.
I'd believe you if you hadn't said "never". But now I think you've been to the edge of the flat earth and peeked at the underside.
The only reason I'm here is that I fell off the edge of the moon!I'd believe you if you hadn't said "never". But now I think you've been to the edge of the flat earth and peeked at the underside.
Other than Sunday School, I went to exclusively government schools, and the latter gave me a good grounding in science and engineering, but that was many decades ago, so maybe things have changed since then.I’ve always wondered just how this whole Flat Earther problem even got started with such excellence in government schools.
Ouch. That’s horribly wrong dude. Except when there is an active eclipse, the curvature of the “partial moon” is due to the fact that the moon is a sphere, and has nothing at all to do with the earth or its shadow.Tell the flat-earthers the look at the partial moon and explain why the Earth's shadow is round.
it's definitely not something to switch CFI's over unless he's a _____ about it.
Possibly, but here is what I'm implying.
Take for example a flight that from A to B gives a course of 015deg, if you go direct. Instead, you fly from fix to fix. The first waypoint from the origin airport places the aircraft on 050 and then after that, the next leg is 355deg. Although some of route puts the aircraft on an Even/Odd course, they could still file for an Odd altitude since the straight line distance is 015. The leg flown from Origin to XYZ VOR on 050, would not require that aircraft to fly at an Odd altitude and then change to an Even altitude once they pass XYZ and then fly to the next fix on a 355deg.
Catch my drift?
I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
He then tells me "no", and you go by whatever the heading of the plane is based on what the compass is telling you.
Common sense, and not just rules, say he’s wrong.
Instead of shoving the rule book under his nose, give your instructor this common-sense test, which has a Catch22 outcome:
Just imagine that as you climb to your planned altitude of 6500, you find that the wind is such that your magnetic heading must not be 358 as you had expected, but 002, to remain on course. Following your instructor’s rule, you are not allowed to remain at 6500, so you choose to climb another 1000 to 7500, but upon arriving there you discover the wind is different, and you must point the plane’s nose a bit more westerly to a heading of 358, which is also not allowed as per your instructor. So, you have a Catch22: you can fly at neither 6500 nor at 7500 because neither altitude allows you to satisfy your instructor’s hemispheric rules. How would your instructor choose to continue this flight?
I think another reason is that flying on airways was much more common back in the days when VORs were the latest and greatest. That made the hemispheric rule much more effective for northbound vs. southbound traffic, because pilots were much less likely to be converging on nearly opposite courses like 001 and 358. The few exceptions would likely have been at specific points, such as directly over a VOR, or where there was a bend in an airway.Yes, good point. This scenario also explains why your altitude is based on your course, as the course does not change with wind conditions.
I was talking about a lunar eclipse but failed to include that in what I wrote. You're right. What I wrote means something completely different from what I intended!Ouch. That’s horribly wrong dude. Except when there is an active eclipse, the curvature of the “partial moon” is due to the fact that the moon is a sphere, and has nothing at all to do with the earth or its shadow.
Common sense, and not just rules, say he’s wrong.
Instead of shoving the rule book under his nose, give your instructor this common-sense test, which has a Catch22 outcome:
Just imagine that as you climb to your planned altitude of 6500, you find that the wind is such that your magnetic heading must not be 358 as you had expected, but 002, to remain on course. Following your instructor’s rule, you are not allowed to remain at 6500, so you choose to climb another 1000 to 7500, but upon arriving there you discover the wind is different, and you must point the plane’s nose a bit more westerly to a heading of 358, which is also not allowed as per your instructor. So, you have a Catch22: you can fly at neither 6500 nor at 7500 because neither altitude allows you to satisfy your instructor’s hemispheric rules. How would your instructor choose to continue this flight?
The goal of the reg is to decrease the liklihood of traffic conflicts, not guarantee that their won't be. As pointed out, those turning, in holding patterns, climbing or descending, or just not playing by the rules, will still cause a potential conflict. The idea is to avoid head-on intersections where the closure rates will be high and shorten the reaction time.
Not even that really with reasonable error thrown in.Really, the rule just guarantees that all midairs will be at an angle of 179 degrees or less...
The rule was created before GPS was invented, so a higher percentage of flights were on airways. Since an airway bearing is printed on the chart, that eliminates any ambiguity about which altitude to fly, and it's rare for airways to cross each other with only a few degrees of bearing difference.Not even that really with reasonable error thrown in.
I've never understood this rule unless on an airway. 500 feet increments to keep IFR and VFR separated, sure. But otherwise I don't see how it helps at all.
So why isn’t the rule limited to airways? Rhetorical.The rule was created before GPS was invented, so a higher percentage of flights were on airways. Since an airway bearing is printed on the chart, that eliminates any ambiguity about which altitude to fly, and it's rare for airways to cross each other with only a few degrees of bearing difference.
Yup...the rule lacks more fidelity. I’d advocate adding and east west heading too with more separation....maybe on the 250’s? Vs the 500 ft separation.Really, the rule just guarantees that all midairs will be at an angle of 179 degrees or less...
Even off airways, it helps because having both aircraft flying close to a 180 or 360 degree course is not a high percentage of the time outside of Florida.So why isn’t the rule limited to airways? Rhetorical.
Ah. Yet another interesting factor of flying mostly in Florida. Makes sense though.Even off airways, it helps because having both aircraft flying close to a 180 or 360 degree course is not a high percentage of the time outside of Florida.