i think I flew into class c airspace accidentally without establishing communication
Rfaul...@gmail.com
there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
east instead of southeast. By the time I realized this, we were way
off course. I fixed our course back to my home airport, but I think
he also changed the GPS to where the map doesn't show the airspace
borders because soon after getting back on course I looked to my right
and saw a class C airport slightly in the distance. I couldn't really
judge how close we were, but we were close enough to where I was
probably in thier airspace. I kind of froze up and wasn't sure what
to do, so I just continued on to my home airport.
Am I going to get in trouble for this? It was completely accidental,
and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.
Thanks
NW_Pilot
carry a current chart and know where you are at all times take it as a
lesson learned.... Don't Depend on GPS depend on your eyes and a chart....
SLR
<Rfaul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81ebe4a3-bf92-43ec...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
John Smith
<81ebe4a3-bf92-43ec...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Rfaul...@gmail.com wrote:
go to this link and follow the instructions
Larry Dighera
in
<81ebe4a3-bf92-43ec...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>It was completely accidental,
>and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
>any input?
Dear RODNEY JAMES FAULKINER,
It sounds like caress operation to me.
http://tinyurl.com/2ywg3t
The clock is ticking.
Consider: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/briefing/br_6.html
The Immunity Concept
(FAA Advisory Circular AC No. 00-46D)
c. The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or
occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, or the
FAR, is considered by FAA to be indicative of a constructive
attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations.
Accordingly, although a finding of a violation may be made,
neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed
if:
The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
The violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident, or
action under 49U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of
qualification or competency, which are wholly excluded from this
policy:
The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action
to have committed a violation of 49 U.S. C. Subtitle VIII, or any
regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the
date of the occurrence; and
The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or
she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the
incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and
7b. NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers.
Morgans
"John Smith" <jsm...@net.net> wrote
And don't talk about it here, or anywhere else, until that has been
completed.
--
Jim in NC
Jay Honeck
> and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
> any input? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid. I just got my private
> pilot cert about 2 weeks ago.
Fill out the NASA form. Hopefully, no harm, no foul.
However, you've got some more learnin' to do about flying. Rule #1 is that
no one touches the plane in any way, shape or form, while in flight without
express permission to do so. This includes all flight controls, engine
controls, and navigational equipment. If your friend did this without
permission, you should have shut him down. And if you gave him permission
to goof around with your primary navigational tool, you've now learned how
crazy that can be.
Rule #2 is always maintain situational awareness. This often means that you
must curtail the social aspects of being with your buddies in order to
concentrate on what you're doing. Not only did you endanger yourself and
your friend by goofing around, you have no idea what kind of headaches you
may have caused air traffic control and any airline passengers who may have
been diverted.
Hopefully you learned some valuable lessons. Better yet, hopefully some
other newbies here learn the lesson from you without having to repeat it
themselves. Thanks for sharing the story.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Al Borowski
>
> Dear [name omitted[
>
Did you really have to put his full name here, in cleartext?
Now anyone using google can search his name and find this thread. It
was a serious stuffup, but that was uncalled for.
Al.
Morgans
"Al Borowski" <al.bo...@gmail.com> wrote
> Did you really have to put his full name here, in cleartext?
>
> Now anyone using google can search his name and find this thread. It
> was a serious stuffup, but that was uncalled for.
That would be standard operating procedure for Larry, if that is what he
did. I avoid the problem with larry by not reading him.
--
Jim in NC
Blueskies
So where were you, for sure? Does your GPS leave tracks, or breadcrumbs, or whatever they call it? Where were your
landmarks? I hope you weren't using GPS all by itself! What was your altitude? Depending on altitude you could have the
C airport in sight but you could have been well clear...
Airpla...@gmail.com
by your failure to take seriously your pilot-in-command
responsibilities, with regard to crew/passenger management and with
regard to ongoing navigation (which you appear to have simply ignored,
except for looking at the GPS screen without even periodically
reviewing its settings). Your attitude was appropriate for an
impromptu drive in a car, not for piloting an airplane.
Furthermore, your main concern afterward seems to be whether you'll
get caught, rather than whether your negligence risked causing a
crash, and might do so in the future.
I'd be afraid to fly with you or near you until and unless you
reassess your priorities. I urge you to discuss these matters with an
instructor (perhaps one you haven't flown with before) and seek
further training. There's no shame in that--on the contrary, it would
be to your credit to show that you recognize that there's a problem
and that you will do what's needed to resolve it.
Good luck to you.
Mike Flying 8
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:48:07 -0800 (PST), Rfaul...@gmail.com wrote
>in
><81ebe4a3-bf92-43ec...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>It was completely accidental,
>>and I don't even know if I was in the class c for sure. Anybody have
>>any input?
>
>Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX
You have got to be kidding me... Are you for real?
Rfaul...@gmail.com
the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
seems uncalled for.
Dudley Henriques
It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
detrimental act to flight safety.
If some pilot out here feels after reading that post that they can't
report these things in good faith, someone may actually be killed down
the line because of what that poster did.
I can't condemn that kind of response enough. When new pilots try and do
things right after making an in-flight error, the very least the
community can do is to back that pilot's behavior to the fullest.
I sincerely hope that you realize you have the backing of the vast
majority of pilots here.
Go ahead and file the report, forget what this single poster did, and
learn from the error.
I have no doubt whatsoever that a new pilot who, as you have done by
asking for advice on a matter like this, will gain from the experience
and be a better pilot in the future. By taking the action you have, you
have made flying safer for all of us, and I commend what you are doing.
Best of luck to you.
Dudley Henriques
Phil J
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night.
It strikes me that you really don't know whether or not you busted
Class C. If I was you I would try to find out for sure. If you
didn't enter Class C, then you are in the clear on this incident.
Phil
Matt Whiting
Because Larry is an idiot as anyone who has followed this ng for more
than 3 months quickly figures out.
Matt
William Hung
I'm fairly new to this RAP and I've already learned that Larry is an
idiot who likes to get into other people's business.
Wil
Airpla...@gmail.com
> Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> > the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> > made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
> > all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> > And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
> > seems uncalled for.
>
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.
I agree that the poster's full name should not have been disclosed--
especially in all caps, as if to rub it in.
On the other hand, it's of no practical consequence. Anyone looking at
the email address would guess that the poster's name is R. Faulkiner,
and the FAA online database--which is presumably where Larry looked up
his information--lists only two such pilots, the other of whom has a
commercial certificate. But the FAA doesn't mine r.a.p. in search of
violations, and filing an ASRS form will provide protection in any
event.
I'm still a little concerned that the poster might not realize that he
didn't just make an isolated mistake of possibly busting Class C, but
rather made a few ongoing mistakes leading up to that--failing to
verify his heading every minute or so (off by 45 degrees until way off
course), following the line on the GPS screen instead of actively
navigating, and failing to adequately brief and supervise his
passenger. If this was his first night XC without an instructor, it
should probably have been solo rather than taking on the extra
responsibility and distraction of a passenger. I offer these comments
not as disparagements, but as constructive criticisms. It just seems
like a generally higher degree of caution and conservative decision-
making may be called for, to avoid getting in over your head.
Again, good luck!
Rfaul...@gmail.com
I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
prepared from now on when I fly.
Airpla...@gmail.com
> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.
Great! Then I'm happy to share the skies with you!
WingFlaps
I'm not yet a pilot, but it sounds like you were acting as if you were
flying IFR -how else could you be thrown off course by the GPS? I've
not done my night rating work but I've been told that flying VFR at
night requires constant attention to lights, compass heading(s)/
bearings and gloomy shadows to know your position. I think the GPS
should be considered to be only an aid for VFR pilots, not the primary
navigation tool (which is eyes, brain and chart) and if I am right in
my student pilot opinion, the autopilot should be slaved to compass
and position checked by GPS -not dictated by GPS (until you are IFR).
I would welcome more experienced pilots to comment on this -should a
VFR pilot slave the autopilot to GPS or compass?
You started a good thread here and it's great that you admit your
mistake for us to learn from it.
Cheers
george
and narked on a fellow pilot who was making an enquiry as to what
action he should pursue after he -might- have entered restricted
airspace.
What a nasty little person !
Roy Smith
<7a77578a-6b19-4e75...@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Rfaul...@gmail.com wrote:
> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.
This sounds like a successful flight. You made a mistake, realized what
you had done, and corrected it. Nobody got hurt, no metal got bent, no
paperwork got generated, and you learned from your mistake.
May all your flights in the future be as successful.
peter
One thing to check would be whether the GPS you used maintained a
tracklog record of the flight. If so, that tracklog may still be
available and can be compared to the airspace maps of the area to
determine if any violation occurred.
Vaughn Simon
> there, but on the way back he started fooling around with the GPS and
> somehow I missed what he did. He changed our course to go straight
Congratulations on your new rating. Welcome to the fraternity.
Let me guess... You hadn't plotted a course as part of your flight planning?
GPS is not a substitute for paper flight planning.
It is best to already know what course you are going to be flying, and for
how long, before you buckle yourself into the plane. That way, any big
difference between actual and what you had planned will be quickly detected.
Also, that leaves you prepared if your GPS goes TU, or if you just push the
wrong button. Following a bug on a moving map is great, but you need to have a
plan (including course lines) before your wheels leave the pavement. The
on-line AOPA flight planner is great for this, and produces kneeboard-sized
printouts that are a great start to your flight planning. Be sure to write in
frequencies for any fields that you may possibly fly near, divert to, or need to
communicate with.
Your examiner probably told you that your new SEL ticket was just a "license
to learn". Chalk up one lesson on flight planning.
Vaughn
Phil J
>
> I appreciate your criticism and I do realize that I made a lot of
> mistakes from the moment I took off. This experience made me more
> aware of my responsibilities as a PIC, and I will be a lot more
> prepared from now on when I fly.- Hide quoted text -
>
This is the best kind of learning experience. Nobody got hurt and
nothing got broken. Plus, since you had the courage to share it here,
other newbies like me can learn from it also. Thanks for posting!
Phil
Larry Dighera
in
<9b452c9f-5624-4d48...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?
Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
identity, you should take steps to conceal it.
> That just seems uncalled for.
It was intended as a slap in the face to get your attention. It's
clear your CFI wasn't able to impart the significance of becoming an
airman to you. That is an area of flight training the FAA seems to
have virtually overlooked. Becoming an airman is (or should be) a
life-changing experience.
It's evident from your post, that you don't yet clearly appreciate
your role in navigating the skies. You are an airman now. If the
_responsibility_ associated with that hasn't dawned on you yet, it
will as you build experiences like the one you related.
You are Pilot In Command! Those with whom and over whom you fly rely
upon YOUR judgment to keep them safe, and that demands that you comply
with regulations ALL THE TIME. If you fail to do that, you have
failed in your responsibility to yourself, your passenger, and all of
your fellow airmen who share the sky with you.
Flying is not a hobby; it serious business, life-and-death business.
If your assessment of the weather forecast for the flight is an issue,
will you have the courage to stand steadfast in your refusal to fly
your companions home from Las Vegas in time for them to clock-in at
work? Or will you permit their complaints to influence you to do
something you know is wrong? They will push you mercilessly to
depart, but tacitly they expect you to keep them safe. You'll have to
firmly assume command of the situation and do what you know is right.
Give it some thought. Please.
B A R R Y
<yeah....@here.com> wrote:
>You have got to be kidding me... Are you for real?
Awful! Totally lame!
What possible purpose would that post serve?
Matt Whiting
What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
everywhere! :-)
Matt Whiting
> You are Pilot In Command!
And you are a idiot!
Rich Ahrens
Three months? Are you a slow learner???
Larry Dighera
wrote in <1ROmj.58$kD5...@news1.epix.net>:
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> You are Pilot In Command!
>
>And you are a idiot!
Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
Bertie the Bunyip
news:fmfnp3hcb569kmurj...@4ax.com:
Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
Bertie
george
Whoops ....
My apologies to all the 'persons' out there for claiming this wanker
to be a part of the human race
Larry Dighera
<Xns9A31A7331C4...@64.209.0.95>:
>Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote in
>news:fmfnp3hcb569kmurj...@4ax.com:
>
>Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
contains a grammatical error.
Lacking any rational argument to support it, it is just an immature
emotional outburst. If someone is able to provide any rational
justification for Mr. Whiting's contention, then let's hear it.
Otherwise, perhaps it is you who lack the depth to infer my meaning.
Larry Dighera
wrote in <Xns9A31F01AD22...@207.14.116.130>:
>Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
You haven't tried.
Bertie the Bunyip
Bertie the Bunyip
> On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote in
> <Xns9A31A7331C4...@64.209.0.95>:
>
>>Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote in
>>news:fmfnp3hcb569kmurj...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net>
>>> wrote in <1ROmj.58$kD5...@news1.epix.net>:
>>>
>>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>>>
>>>>And you are a idiot!
>>>
>>>
>>> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>>>
>>>
>>Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
>
> Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
> contains a grammatical error.
Snort!
Bertie
William Hung
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:38:36 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1>
> wrote in <Xns9A31F01AD2269pissuprop...@207.14.116.130>:
>
> >Like anyone could have a rational discussion with you.
>
> You haven't tried.
Larry, you are an idiot. This is not an insult, just a statement of
fact.
Wil
Larry Dighera
wrote in <fngioj$6d1$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
Oh, it's been demonstrated:
Message-ID: <276in3psmu83gbe4e...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <5n1in3d5a5fuptpq9...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <irthn3998uvaq099m...@4ax.com>
Bertie the Bunyip
Hey Larry, I suggested you ggo fuck yourself?
Well, did you?
How can I talk to someone who can;t follow instructions?
Bertie
TheSmokingGnu
> On Jan 27, 11:50 am, Matt Whiting <whit...@epix.net> wrote:
>> What makes you think he's a person? That is an insult to persons
>> everywhere! :-)
>
> Whoops ....
> My apologies to all the 'persons' out there for claiming this wanker
> to be a part of the human race
Now now, you've only insulted wankers everywhere. New to this, arentcha?
:D
Larry, go take a long roll off a short runway. The OP obviously has
already grasped the depth and scope of his snafu(s), there was and is
absolutely no need to castigate him like a fucking nun.
Mistakes were made, noted, and will be corrected. The circle of flying
is complete.
TheSmokingGnu
Larry Dighera
wrote in <fngjqv$8s7$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
Hung on his own Petard.
The defense rests.
Al Borowski
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote
> in
> <9b452c9f-5624-4d48-901f-9d67ae0e6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?
>
> Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
> originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
> identity, you should take steps to conceal it.
There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
up.
Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
worst.
If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.
The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.
Al
Bertie the Bunyip
The mighty Betie the Bunyip. Beaten at lst by a fjuktard.
How will I ever live it down?
Bertie
Larry Dighera
<al.bo...@gmail.com> wrote in
<0f837cb7-ffa2-48fb...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 27, 8:24 am, Larry Dighera <LDigh...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:38:17 -0800 (PST), Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote
>> in
>> <9b452c9f-5624-4d48-901f-9d67ae0e6...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread?
>>
>> Actually, you put your name is in the 'From:' field of the message you
>> originally posted yourself. If you have concerns about revealing your
>> identity, you should take steps to conceal it.
>
>There is a huge difference between using an email address with a
>partial name, as opposed to printing the entire name in full. Sure, a
>pilot or interested person reading this thread could have figured it
>out, but the average joe researching the OP wouldn't have found it.
>But now you've put the name onto USENET for the search engines to pick
>up.
>
>Worst case: An employer, googling the name, will now find this thread.
>They probably won't have an aviation background and will not have the
>knowledge to evaluate the misake, so they'll probably assume the
>worst.
In the event Mr. Faulkiner's is employed, and his possible employer
may have reason to research Mr. Faulkiner via a Google search, and the
possibility that Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer lacks the ability
or knowledge to correctly evaluate Mr. Faulkiner's passable pilot
deviation, exactly what do you think Mr. Faulkiner's possible employer
might assume?
>If you felt like you HAD to name him, you could of at least obfuscated
>his name slightly. J--N SM--H instead of JOHN SMITH or something.
Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
him. I assure you, that I meant no enmity toward Mr. Faulkiner.
>The OP did something stupid, and realised he made a mistake. He was
>man enough to own up to it. Maybe you should do the same.
>
>Al
>
I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
Main Entry:1command
Pronunciation:k*-*mand
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English comanden, from Middle French comander,
from (assumed) Vulgar Latin commandare, alteration of Latin
commendare to commit to one's charge more at COMMEND
Date:14th century
transitive senses
1 : to direct authoritatively : ORDER
2 : to exercise a dominating influence over : have command of: as
a : to have at one's immediate disposal
b : to demand or receive as one's due *commands a high fee*
c : to overlook or dominate from or as if from a strategic
position
d : to have military command of as senior officer
3 obsolete : to order or request to be given
intransitive senses
1 : to have or exercise direct authority : GOVERN
2 : to give orders
3 : to be commander
4 : to dominate as if from an elevated place
–commandable \-*man-d*-b*l\ adjective
synonyms COMMAND, ORDER, BID, ENJOIN, DIRECT, INSTRUCT, CHARGE
mean to issue orders. COMMAND and ORDER imply authority and
usually some degree of formality and impersonality. COMMAND
stresses official exercise of authority *a general commanding
troops*. ORDER may suggest peremptory or arbitrary exercise
*ordered his employees about like slaves*. BID suggests giving
orders peremptorily (as to children or servants) *she bade him be
seated*. ENJOIN implies giving an order or direction
authoritatively and urgently and often with admonition or
solicitude *a sign enjoining patrons to be quiet*. DIRECT and
INSTRUCT both connote expectation of obedience and usually concern
specific points of procedure or method, INSTRUCT sometimes
implying greater explicitness or formality *directed her assistant
to hold all calls* *the judge instructed the jury to ignore the
remark*. CHARGE adds to ENJOIN an implication of imposing as a
duty or responsibility *charged by the President with a secret
mission*.
Jay Maynard
> I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
> apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
just as effectively.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
Rfaul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera <LDigh...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
> > of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
> > apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>
> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
> just as effectively.
> --
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
feel we may be at fault. Having an obscured partial name is a lot
different than having your full name come up on a search engine. I
understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
that were constructive. But posting of a name was totally
unnecessary. The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my
mind all day. I realize the magnitude of my mistake. I have scheduled
some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go throught the track log
of the GPS in the plane I rented.
Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
entirely true.
Matt Whiting
Not me, but some seem to have taken a while to figure out Larry.
Matt Whiting
Yes, for that does appear to be the case. I think the posts are running
nearly 100% against you, so who is and is not engaging in rational
discussion?
Matt Whiting
> On 26 Jan 2008 23:26:07 GMT, Clark <c...@uswest.net> wrote in
> <Xns9A31A7331C4...@64.209.0.95>:
>
>> Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:fmfnp3hcb569kmurj...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:52:45 GMT, Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net>
>>> wrote in <1ROmj.58$kD5...@news1.epix.net>:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are Pilot In Command!
>>>> And you are a idiot!
>>>
>>> Insults are so much easier than rational discussion, aren't they Matt?
>>>
>>>
>> Larry, that wasn't an insult. It was an accurate descriptor.
>
> Actually, it was an unsubstantiated insult to my intelligence that
> contains a grammatical error.
Actually, it was a typographical error.
> Lacking any rational argument to support it, it is just an immature
> emotional outburst. If someone is able to provide any rational
> justification for Mr. Whiting's contention, then let's hear it.
> Otherwise, perhaps it is you who lack the depth to infer my meaning.
Your posting history in this ng stands alone as ample justification.
Jules
Larry Dighera wrote:
> Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
> obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
> him.
When people do, they get hash for that too!!
Larry, you keep peddling.
Thing is everybody, googles everybody.
If this guy finds a lawyer that agrees what you did was actionable, in
outing him. More power to him, I say.
Jules
> Perhaps Mr. Faulkiner should have taken the responsibility to do the
> obfuscating you suggest if revealing his identity were an issue for
> him.
------------------
Oh sure, it's all his fault????
Airpla...@gmail.com
>
> Having an obscured partial name is a lot different
> than having your full name come up on a search engine.
With all due respect, it's not. Even without Larry's post, googling
rfaulkiner immediately turns up your full name; and conversely,
googling your full name (which is what someone investigating you would
do) immediately turns up rfaulkiner--which would be an obvious item
for an investigator to google anyway, given your full name. (I'm not
sure why you think the name is 'obscured'. Google's web-based
newsgroup reader does omit part of the email address until you click
to see the full address, but other newsgroup readers display the full
address to begin with.)
Larry's tactic was unnecessarily rude, but otherwise inconsequential.
Be safe and enjoy your new certificate!
Larry Dighera
in
<64323d62-36ee-4a9a...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 26, 9:17 pm, Jay Maynard <jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.com>
>wrote:
>> On 2008-01-27, Larry Dighera <LDigh...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I would characterize it as effective in grabbing Mr. Faulkiner's
>> > attention and impressing him with the importance of assuming command
>> > of his flights in the future, something his CFI failed to do
>> > apparently. If you see it as stupid, we disagree.
>>
>> You used the Usenet equivalent of shooting him in the ass with a .45 to get
>> his attention. You could have done so in a much more civilized manner and
>> just as effectively.
>
>
>The only thing you have done is make sure that I, as well as any other
>new pilots, will never ask an honest question on the ng again if we
>feel we may be at fault.
That would be unfortunate if it were true, however I doubt you are not
able to speak other pilots. But they may realize how obscuring their
identity may be appropriate when they are publicly confessing their
regulation violations now.
>Having an obscured partial name is a lot
>different than having your full name come up on a search engine.
Of course that's not true in your case. In the future you may
consider verifying your assertions before making them.
If your identity was an issue for you, why didn't YOU take steps to
obscure it? I'll reckon you are aware of the value of it now.
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds
>I understand everything you said Larry, and I truly appreciate the bits
>that were constructive.
You're welcome.
Which bits do you feel were not constructive?
>But posting of a name was totally unnecessary.
I'm not so sure.
Would you have preferred to remain ignorant and continue to post your
(possible) pilot deviations using your true identity, rather than see
how it looked publicly?
Here's another hint. If you fail to instruct the FAA to remove your
name from their publicly accessible records, more than your name will
be accessible to those researching you. But there's no reason to be
paranoid about it, is there? Are you unlisted in the telephone book?
>The mistakes I made during my flight have been on my mind all day.
Excellent. I believe you will recall this experience repeatedly over
the decades, and when you do, you can thank me (and not your CFI
apparently) for impressing it indelibly in your mind.
>I realize the magnitude of my mistake.
Which one? The PD turned out okay, but your failure to command the
flight, as you should have been taught, is far more serious. You will
be working on that for a while. But don't beat yourself over it; it's
common for freshly certificated airmen. Just learn to be as serious
as you can about your flight operations, and always comply with Sec.
91.103:
http://tinyurl.com/2vcweo
Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
You'll notice the FAA used the absolute word 'all' in that regulation.
It can be a pain to be thorough in researching ALL the data pertinent
to EVERY flight, but it's necessary. Not only to comply with
regulations, but to assure yourself that things haven't changed....
I humbly suggest, that you consider making it a personal rule to NEVER
launch without your course-line plotted on a chart; GPS is no
substitute for paper charts, trust me.
>I have scheduled some time with my CFI to discuss this, and go
>throught the track log of the GPS in the plane I rented.
I am impressed. That is a very mature choice of action. Well done.
I know you are worried about the consequences of your PD. Given the
ASRS immunity, that can be a non-issue for you. But your failure to
command is far more important. It would seem that the seeds of
appreciation for the significance of that have been well planted, and
are already bearing fruit.
>Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
>that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
>entirely true.
When you were a child and your mother rapped your knuckles for playing
with matches, did you think she disliked you? Or did you realized she
had your best interest at heart?
Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
--
There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
luck, and empty bag of experiance - the trick being to fill the
bag of experiance before you empty the bag of luck"
-- Colin Southern
Bertie the Bunyip
Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
you, Lar....
Bertie
William Hung
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:59:24 -0800 (PST), Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote
> in
> <64323d62-36ee-4a9a-b8ed-d4f2b6089...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry,
Not only are you an idiot, you are a complete asshole.
Wil
Larry Dighera
wrote in <Xns9A32B3D54E0...@207.14.116.130>:
>So hang out here in
>> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
>> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>>
>
>Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
>you, Lar....
Have no fear, son. You'll think of something constructive to say one
day, maybe. Just keep practicing...You'll figure it out.
I have faith in you; just look at how you chose not to crosspost your
followup to your home planet, alt.usenet.kooks, this time. Even the
sophomoric possess the potential to learn, eh?
Bertie the Bunyip
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip <Sm@rt.1>
> wrote in <Xns9A32B3D54E0...@207.14.116.130>:
>
>>So hang out here in
>>> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
>>> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
>>>
>>
>>Wow, I've scraped more pleasant things off the bottom of my shoe than
>>you, Lar....
>
> Have no fear, son. You'll think of something constructive to say one
> day, maybe. Just keep practicing...You'll figure it out.
oh ouch.
>
> I have faith in you; just look at how you chose not to crosspost your
> followup to your home planet, alt.usenet.kooks, this time. Even the
> sophomoric possess the potential to learn, eh?
>
Oh I can crosspost there if you like, Lar.
But they're creampuffs compared to the meowers..
Demonstration?
Bertie
Rich Ahrens
Now you're insulting assholes everywhere...
Matt Whiting
> Although you may find my methods to be a source of enmity toward me
> personally, it's worth suffering your indigence if it serves to
> impress upon you the responsibilities incumbent on airmen. There are
> enough news reports of stupid-pilot-tricks to darken our image in the
> eyes of the public already, and I'm sure you want to be regarded as
> competent and professional among your peers. So hang out here in
> rec.aviation.piloting for a few months, and I guarantee you'll learn a
> lot (if you can pick your way through the noise).
Well, I've just ignored your drivel for the most part, but I'm weary of
it. Plonk.
Matt
Phil J
> Every time I have dealt with other pilots, I was under the impression
> that we were somehow united as a group. I now realize that is not
> entirely true.
All you have to do is read this NG for about two minutes and you will
see that pilots are not united as a group! But it's just like every
other NG out there, so I guess pilots are no different than any other
group of human beings.
In any NG if you write a post describing something stupid you did, you
can expect a certain amount of, let's call it friction, in response.
But don't let it stop you, or anyone else reading this, from posting
your mistakes here. One of the real purposes of this NG is for us to
learn from each other. It takes courage to go into a public forum
like this and confess your mistakes for all the world to see. Not
everyone has the guts to do it. I am glad you did.
Phil
Gig 601XL Builder
> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
> seems uncalled for.
It was very tacky for Larry to do that but it is what can be expected
form Larry.
Keep in mind though you did post with enough info that anyone could have
found your full name.
Gig 601XL Builder
> On Jan 27, 6:38 am, Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I was not concerned for
>> the safety of others. I am familiar with the area we were in, but I
>> made a serious mistake at night. I do appreciate all the options you
>> all have laid out for me. I will fill out the NASA form immediately.
>> And why on Earth would someone put my name in the thread? That just
>> seems uncalled for.
>
> flying IFR -how else could you be thrown off course by the GPS? I've
> not done my night rating work but I've been told that flying VFR at
> night requires constant attention to lights, compass heading(s)/
> bearings and gloomy shadows to know your position. I think the GPS
> should be considered to be only an aid for VFR pilots, not the primary
> navigation tool (which is eyes, brain and chart) and if I am right in
> my student pilot opinion, the autopilot should be slaved to compass
> and position checked by GPS -not dictated by GPS (until you are IFR).
> I would welcome more experienced pilots to comment on this -should a
> VFR pilot slave the autopilot to GPS or compass?
>
> You started a good thread here and it's great that you admit your
> mistake for us to learn from it.
>
> Cheers
>
What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:13prss7...@news.supernews.com:
Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
sort of stuff.
Bertie
>
Gig 601XL Builder
>>
>> What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>> GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
>
>
> Well, there are other, more traditional, methods that are really pretty
> essential if you're going to do that. 1 in 60 rule, for instance.
> Determinging drift from aircraft ref points and celestial bodies, that
> sort of stuff.
>
> Bertie
>
Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements
and use of a VOR was.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:13prvb8...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
> use of a VOR was.
>
When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
Bertie the Bunyip
@news.supernews.com:
I know, but going vfr on top is kinda heavy territory for someone with a
fresh ppl anyway.
How many know the 1/60 rule?
Bertie
Larry Dighera
<wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<13prss7...@news.supernews.com>:
>What if you are VFR over a cloud layer? There are lots of times that
>GPS, VOR and even ADF are the primary navigation aids for VFR pilots.
I still maintain that it is imperative to have a course-line plotted
on a paper chart for all but the shortest VFR flights.
Consider the VFR over the top flight whose pilot hasn't plotted the
course on a paper chart and suffers a sudden electrical system
failure. Terrestrial landmarks are obscured by the undercast, so it's
not possible to estimate bearings from them. Barring the use of hand
held electronics, how is he to ascertain his current position and
route to a safe landing?
Gig 601XL Builder
I didn't say anything about someone with a fresh PPL. The person I was
responding to (a student) was saying that a non-instrument rated pilot
shouldn't be using GPS, IFR... as primary navigation.
I've heard the term 1/60 rule but don't know what it is.
Gig 601XL Builder
You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.
B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ą200 feet (60 meters) and
headings ą15°.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
>
No.
>
> The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.
>
Yes, as does Part 61, but not specifically VOR as you claimed.
>
> B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
> (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
> Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
> and radar services.
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.
> 5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
> appropriate.
> 6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
> 7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
> services.
> 8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ą200 feet (60 meters) and
> headings ą15°.
>
VOR does not appear there either. I suggest you read what you quote before
posting it, you might appear less stupid that way.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13ps1jl...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
> >
> No.
> >
> > The practical test standard does cover navigational aids and you know it.
> >
> Yes, as does Part 61, but not specifically VOR as you claimed.
> >
> > B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
> > (ASEL and ASES)
> > REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
> > Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
> > Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> > 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
> > and radar services.
> > 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> > system.
> > 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> > 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> > appropriate.
> > 5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
> > appropriate.
> > 6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
> > 7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
> > services.
> > 8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ?200 feet (60 meters) and
> > headings ?15?.
> >
> VOR does not appear there either. I suggest you read what you quote before
> posting it, you might appear less stupid that way.
VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
I suggest you read for comprehension rather than doing word searches
on text before posting; you might appear less of an anal asshole that
way.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Larry Dighera
<wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
<13ps1jl...@news.supernews.com>:
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13prvb8...@news.supernews.com...
>>> Last time I checked celestial navigation wasn't in the PP requirements and
>>> use of a VOR was.
>>>
>>
>> When did you last check? "VOR" does not appear in Part 61.
>>
>>
>
>You're such a dick Steven. Does the initial P stand for penis?
I believe your response to a civil question imminently qualifies you
for the invective you so glibly sling, more than the object of your
scorn.
Steven P. McNicoll
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:0re175-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> VOR is obviously implied by the language to even the most casual reader.
>
It's not implied at all to an informed reader.
Gig 601XL Builder
Larry backing up Steven there's a heck of a team.
Gig 601XL Builder
OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
systems these lines are referring to...
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Yeah, sure.
I'm willing to bet every pillow, mattress, and piece of furniture in
your house still has the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on
it.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
> systems these lines are referring to...
>
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.
>
It doesn't refer to any specific system. The requirements can be satisfied
with ADF.
Steven P. McNicoll
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:dmg175-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> I'm willing to bet every pillow, mattress, and piece of furniture in
> your house still has the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag on
> it.
>
You're on. Name the amount.
Jay Maynard
> OK Steven, please inform us what electronic navigation
> systems these lines are referring to...
> 2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
> system.
> 3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
> 4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
> appropriate.
I'm not Steven, but it seems to me that a GPS would qualify.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
Cary
> Rfaulki...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It WAS uncalled for, and could in fact actually be a clearly defined
> detrimental act to flight safety.
>
> ...> Best of luck to you.
> Dudley Henriques
Dudley,
As usual your response is right on. I also agree with you completely
and would like to encourage others to continue posting their errors so
that we can all learn. I have certainly made my share of errors in my
1500 hours, and have posted many of them here. If someone wants to
remain anonymous, they should feel free to do so.
Best,
Cary
Jim Logajan
> How many know the 1/60 rule?
I didn't - but then I'm not yet past student pilot. Luckily google yields
this:
Bertie the Bunyip
Mr Netkkkop speaks out again.
Bertie
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Said as he scurries through the house looking for all those tags...
Steven P. McNicoll
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:fdi175-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> Said as he scurries through the house looking for all those tags...
>
Welcher.
Bertie the Bunyip
Well, what I'm advocating is a bit more nuts and bolts nav sense if
people are going to start dicing with weather, rather than just rely on
GPS, so I think we're on the same page. The one in sixty rule just
means, for example, that every sixty miles you are from a navaid, each
degree is about one mile. So, if you're sailing along roughly abeam a
VOR with no DME, and you know your groundspeed is about 2 miles a minute
and you cover two degrees in about a minute, well, you know that that
VOR is sixty miles away. If you cover four degrees in a minute, you're
thirty miles and so on. It's rule of thumb, but it works well.
Likelyise, if you are dead reckoning on top and there is one quick
visual reference and you know how far it is off your dsired track since
our last known position, you can calculate your drift quite accurately
for your next leg. There's a thousand and one uses for it.
Cool eh?
Bertie
Larry Dighera
in <aa9d77ec-18fa-4d25...@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.131.11.16
But don't expect GoogleGroups to provide complete anonymity. For
instance, you posted your article from: Department of Veterans
Affairs. I just thought you'd like to know.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:Xns9A3367F6956C...@216.168.3.30:
It's not widely taught these day, along with a host of other nav tricks
that were common knowledge years ago in pre radio days.
This one is one of the most useful i can think of though. Another
example would be if you are flying along an airway and there's a navaid
roughly abeam you you can figure your groundspeed by counting the time
it takes to cross radials.
One other simple nav trick is to be aware of how many degrees a
particular point of your airplane is form your eye position. To make
this as accurate as possible, you have to start out with standard
position for your eye, i.e, make sure you make the observation from the
same positon and not with your seat slid forward one time and back the
next.
Then measure, using wahtever sort of device is to hand, the point of
your aircraft that would be 5 deg left of the aircraft's centerline. You
could move the airplane around on the ground to do this using a distant
ground refernce point, or you could use a homemade sextant or whatever
way you care to come up with. You can do it on cowl parts, wings, and
tail. The fore and aft ones are most useful, but it's handy to have some
reference on the wings as well. When you know the references, you can
easily calculate your drift by seing whcih refernce line remains steady
with a ground refernce as you fly along. The poiint that remains steady
on your aircraft is indicating your drift. This is especially handy if
you're leaving your last ground ref points behind you like on an
overwater flight. You can get an actual drift by looking behind you as
you head away from land.
A lot of old time long distance flyers would have had lines painted on
various parts for this very purpose, especially on the stab. I think the
Douglas world Cruisers had them, for instance, and a lot of the Benidix
and McPherson racers would have had them.
Bertie
Peter Clark
GPS? LORAN? ADF?
Gig 601XL Builder
Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I
took my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgi...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Which is one of the systems I mentioned to start off with. But when I took
> my PPL test ride ADF and GPS weren't options so I shortened it.
>
You said use of a VOR was in the PP requirements. It's not.
Bertie the Bunyip
Gig 601XL Builder
> Well, what I'm advocating is a bit more nuts and bolts nav sense if
> people are going to start dicing with weather, rather than just rely on
> GPS, so I think we're on the same page. The one in sixty rule just
> means, for example, that every sixty miles you are from a navaid, each
> degree is about one mile. So, if you're sailing along roughly abeam a
> VOR with no DME, and you know your groundspeed is about 2 miles a minute
> and you cover two degrees in about a minute, well, you know that that
> VOR is sixty miles away. If you cover four degrees in a minute, you're
> thirty miles and so on. It's rule of thumb, but it works well.
> Likelyise, if you are dead reckoning on top and there is one quick
> visual reference and you know how far it is off your dsired track since
> our last known position, you can calculate your drift quite accurately
> for your next leg. There's a thousand and one uses for it.
>
> Cool eh?
>
> Bertie
>
Yes it is cool and I'm pretty sure somebody taught it to me at some
point. It's back up in the front of the memory system now so, Thanks.