How do you find the limits of areas on a chart?
Mxsmanic
the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
them?
Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
not always been available.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Judah
news:sr5ik2lm62t5j8hq5...@4ax.com:
The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
fly. And best of all, it's free.
Neil Gould
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.
>
Reading a chart, like many other things, is a process that requires
knowledge. One gains this knowledge by studying. Once you have studied and
gained the necessaryt knowledge, you will know that there is no
"guesstimate" involved in knowing the boundaries of areas on a chart. You
have been given ample resources by many posters that would enable the
average person to research and answer this question on their own. Why not
give that a try?
Neil
Dave Doe
mxsm...@gmail.com says...
You can use your instruments and you can use your eyes. You get
clearances (if required) *before* you enter an area. When climbing out
and under VFR you ensure you remain below TMA's by the same technique -
well *before* the area.
If IFR, you fly what you're told - if you think the controller's made a
mistake (because of what you can see on the charts), then asking for
clarification might be wise.
You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).
--
Duncan
The Visitor
Neil Gould wrote:
You
> have been given ample resources by many posters that would enable the
> average person to research and answer this question on their own. Why not
> give that a try?
I had a funny though,t that a person could write a learn to fly a
simulator book; comprised of cut and pasted poster's answers to all
these various questions. ??? Every aspect it seems if being covered.
Robert M. Gary
> surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
>
> To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
> has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
> fly. And best of all, it's free.
Today most of us just hold the wing off the red line on the GPS. We can
thread some pretty tight areas with GPS today.
-Robert
Ron Garret
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.
Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
out in the real world?
If the former, there's a legend printed on every chart.
If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
"looking out the window for landmarks."
rg
Mxsmanic
> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
wish to avoid?
> To learn how to read a sectional, I would recommend Whitt's Flying site. It
> has very useful and detailed lessons for a student who wants to learn how to
> fly. And best of all, it's free.
>
> http://www.whittsflying.com/
I'll try it.
Mxsmanic
> I had a funny though,t that a person could write a learn to fly a
> simulator book; comprised of cut and pasted poster's answers to all
> these various questions. ??? Every aspect it seems if being covered.
The ideal simulator can be flown by a real pilot with no special
instruction at all. That's why it's called a simulator.
Mxsmanic
> You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
> VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).
I've been able to find sectional charts and terminal charts at
SkyVector, but where can I find IFR charts?
A Lieberma
news:v7fik25a3uinm50rp...@4ax.com:
> Judah writes:
>
>> The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the
>> terrain surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation
>> aids.
>
> Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
> exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
> flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
> wish to avoid?
No..... The answer is very clearly answered above.
Read it real slow, and just maybe you may get out of it, you use your
eyes......
The answer is clearly in Google. The news about the plane in NY crashing
into a condominium will sure give you real life examples to your questions
being asked.
DO YOUR RESEARCH as you claim and the answers are there.
Allen
Jim Macklin
can use a chart to plot the lat/lon for any point.
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
(Military Operations Area)
04-AGL-63-NR & 05-AGL-18-NR
Racer A MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 00' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 01' 29"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 16' 06"W long.,
to 39° 06' 00"N lat., 86° 15' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
4,000' MSL.
Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer A MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN
Racer B MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 00' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 01' 29"W long.,
to 38° 57' 48"N lat., 86° 16' 06"W long.,
to 39° 06' 00"N lat., 86° 15' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 4,000' MSL up to 8,000' MSL.
Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer B MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN
Racer C MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09'
50"W long.,
to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 07' 36"N lat., 86° 08' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
FL 180.
Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer C MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN
Racer D MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 22' 00"N lat., 86° 06'
40"W long.,
to 39° 22' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 21' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 21' 30"N lat., 86° 06' 00"W long.,
to 39° 13' 00"N lat., 86° 06' 00"W long.,
to 39° 13' 00"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 85° 59' 30"W long.,
to 39° 12' 30"N lat., 86° 09' 50"W long.,
to 39° 19' 00"N lat., 86° 11' 20"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 14,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.
Time of designation: May 1 through September 30,
0700-2200 local time daily; October 1 through April 30,
0800-2200 local time, Tuesday through Saturday, other times
by NOTAM; Racer D MOA will not be activated between
2200-0700 local time.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 1, Camp Atterbury,
Edinburgh, IN
JPG A MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 39' 00"N lat., 85° 56'
00"W long.,
to 38° 39' 00"N lat., 86° 05' 13"W long.,
to 38° 46' 00"N lat., 86° 13' 00"W long.,
to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.,
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 57"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 55' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 50' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52' 43"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
6,000' MSL; excluding the airspace from the surface to but
not including 4,000 feet MSL beginning at
38° 39' 00"N lat., 85° 56' 00"W long.;
to 38° 39' 00"N lat., 86° 05' 13"W long.;
to 38° 46' 00"N lat., 86° 13' 00"W long.;
to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.;
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
thence south, southeast along the Louisville and
Indiana railroad tracks;
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52' 43"W long.;
to point of beginning.
Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG A MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN
JPG B MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 40' 17"N lat., 85° 52'
43"W long.,
to 38° 50' 34"N lat., 86° 00' 53"W long.,
to 38° 53' 57"N lat., 85° 51' 51"W long.;
to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 38° 42' 38"N lat., 85° 46' 51"W long.;
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 6,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.
Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG B MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN
JPG C MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 38° 48' 00"N lat., 85° 33'
00"W long.,
to 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 38° 57' 30"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to 38° 55' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 38° 50' 00"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 6,000' MSL up to but not
including FL 180.
Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG C MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN
JPG D MOA, IN
Boundaries: Beginning at 39° 01' 00"N lat., 85° 33'
00"W long.,
to 39° 10' 00"N lat., 85° 33' 00"W long.,
to 39° 12' 00"N lat., 85° 29' 00"W long.,
to 39° 10' 00"N lat., 85° 22' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 00"N lat., 85° 22' 00"W long.,
to 39° 02' 57"N lat., 85° 27' 42"W long.,
to 39° 02' 05"N lat., 85° 30' 00"W long.,
to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes: 500' AGL up to but not including
4,000' MSL.
Time of designation: 0800-2300 local time daily; other
times by NOTAM; JPG D MOA activated in conjunction with the
Jefferson Gunnery Range.
Controlling agency: FAA, Indianapolis ARTCC
Using agency: HQ IN ANG Det 2, Madison, IN
For status of the Racer MOAs call (812) 526-1496. For
status of JPG MOAs call (812) 689-7295.
"A Lieberma" <lieb...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:Xns986EC4F2EB7D0...@216.77.188.18...
Mxsmanic
> Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
> how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
> out in the real world?
How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.
> If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
> technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
> "looking out the window for landmarks."
But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
surveyed.
A Lieberma
news:moiik2hjcuk0ltono...@4ax.com:
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
WRONG AGAIN.
Maybe if you took the time to RESEARCH how to read a sectional, you will
find all sorts of goodies, such as power lines, lakes, rivers, cities,
points of interests that actually correlate with USING YOUR EYES outside
the window. And guess what, there are even roads depicted on the charts.
And this is only a small taste of what a chart can offer. DO YOUR RESEARCH
and you wouldn't be saying such silly things as above.
Allen
randall g
>Ron Garret writes:
>
>> Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
>> how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
>> out in the real world?
>
>How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
>as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
>the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
>indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.
It's called pilotage and it's really not that hard in real life, if you
are at all good with maps in the first place (which I expect most pilots
are). You really owe it to yourself to fly for real some day.
(reminds me of a great line in LordOTRings:
"Maps conveyed nothing to Sam's mind")
randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca
Judah
> How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
> as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
> the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
> indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.
In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills, mountains.
All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not effectively
simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit of a small plane,
and that is why you are having so much trouble.
Grumman-581
> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
> don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
Ahhh, but you can in MSFS... <snicker>
Robert M. Gary
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > The sectional depicts the borders very clearly, and it depicts the terrain
> > surrounding those borders as well as any nearby navigation aids.
>
> Yes, but it provides no directions or dimensions (with a few
> exceptions). Am I expected to pull out a protractor and a ruler in
> flight to check the chart and see if I really am clear of airspaces I
> wish to avoid?
The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
distance and can figure direction.
-Robert, CFII
A Lieberma
news:1162439205.4...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> distance and can figure direction.
>
> -Robert, CFII
Be honest Robert *very big smile*
Outside of training, when was the last time you used the plotter in flight?
It's been some time since I did a "true VFR flight" but when I did, I used
the tic marks inside the boxes (going on memory, 30 miles per box) to
figure mileage and eyeballed the heading based on my direction of flight.
In my VFR checkride, if memory serves me correct, the DE didn't look for me
to know the direction to the umpteenth degreee for my diversion airport
(what general heading would I turn to), but he did want to know within 5
miles how far I was from the airport I had to "divert" during the check
ride from a checkpoint I had crossed.
He also wanted me to tell him what I would look for at my diversion airport
based on the sectional which was easy for me, don't cross the Mississippi
river, follow Interstate 20 and look north (left) of the city of Vicksburg
to find my airport.
Allen
(who gave up the plotter for computerized flight planning)
Roy Smith
I learned navigation on a boat, where the traditional tools are parallel
rules and a pair of dividers. I always found the standard aviation plotter
to be awkward to use compared to those. Use whatever works for you.
Neither a plotter nor parallel rules is convenient to use in the cockpit
(they're mostly pre-flight planning tools). AOPA puts out a nice little
gizmo called an AIR-AID. It's not much more than a piece of thin plastic
with sectional and terminal chart scales printed on it, but it fits in a
pocket, and it's handy to use in flight.
Also, learn to estimate. A VOR compass rose is 10 nm radius on a
sectional. For bearing, I put the edge of my hand down and then slide it
over to the nearest compass ross, keeping the angle constant. Should get
you within 10 degrees or so.
Dan
area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
Sometimes I just file IFR to avoid the hassles.
--Dan
John Gaquin
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas,
There's a dark, dashed line painted on the surface of the earth denoting
these areas, making avoidance easy. These lines are not noticeable to those
on the surface, but are easily visable from the air. If you'd take the
bother to go on a real flight, you would notice this. :-)
Dave Doe
mxsm...@gmail.com says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > You might like to note the differences between IFR charts and plates vs
> > VFR charts (which, if you look, are really maps - topo maps).
>
> I've been able to find sectional charts and terminal charts at
> SkyVector, but where can I find IFR charts?
You could check out some arrival and departure plates here...
http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Christchurch
--
Duncan
Mxsmanic
> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> distance and can figure direction.
I googled for this and found only software.
I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
using with flat charts on tables in movies? Certainly that might be
useful, but what about during flight? Chart tables would be awkward
in the cockpit (although large aircraft with navigators might have
them).
Mxsmanic
> You could check out some arrival and departure plates here...
>
> http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Christchurch
AirNav has those. But it sounds like there are other en-route charts
for IFR, which I haven't seen.
Mxsmanic
> Maybe if you took the time to RESEARCH how to read a sectional, you will
> find all sorts of goodies, such as power lines, lakes, rivers, cities,
> points of interests that actually correlate with USING YOUR EYES outside
> the window.
I've looked very carefully at sectionals. In the vast majority of
cases, there are no clear landmarks indicated that allow one to locate
the exact boundary of airspaces. The best one can do is allow a
margin of several miles or more, but in crowded areas that may not be
sufficient.
How do I know if I'm in the southwestern tip of the Turtle MOA on the
chart that covers Arizona, for example? There are no landmarks given.
Mxsmanic
> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc. You
> don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
I don't see any difference between the two.
> The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
> cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills, mountains.
Not enough to locate the boundaries of the airspaces.
> All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not effectively
> simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit of a small plane,
> and that is why you are having so much trouble.
No, I'm having trouble because there isn't anything on the chart that
allows me to locate airspace boundaries in many cases. The boundaries
are not stenciled on the ground outside the window, even in real life.
Mxsmanic
> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
maps and GPS do it?
Mxsmanic
> You ought to know where you are anyway, at least roughly. If you do,
> you also know when approaching an airspace indicated in the chart.
But you don't know when you've cross the boundary in most cases. You
can only guess. You can find points that are definitely outside or
definitely inside, but you cannot find the boundary itself.
> That's what navigation is all about. If you don't know where you are at
> all, you're doing something wrong.
It's not a question of not knowing at all, it's a question of knowing
with sufficient precision to respect airspace boundaries.
> In "empty" areas you use a technique called dead reckoning. It's
> essentially extrapolating from your last known position. Of course this
> introduces an error, which you should take into account when deciding
> your safety margins from any obstacle or forbidden airspace.
In other words, you still don't know.
> If you feel uncertain about those blank areas, you can always avoid them.
Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
avoid them and still complete the flight.
> No, but they don't have to for that purpose. You deduce your position
> in the topography relative to visible landmarks without having to be
> exactly over them, and from there you deduce your position relative to
> whatever airspace depicted on the map, once again without its boundary
> having to be exactly on a landmark.
That only works if you leave an extremely wide margin for error.
Judah
news:eufjk2lu4hgi3s0u3...@4ax.com:
You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole Mountains,
and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between that and the Cadiz
Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know how to read a sectional.
Judah
news:27gjk2tea5rfeqof6...@4ax.com:
> Judah writes:
>
>> In the real world, you start out at a known location, and monitor your
>> progress using navigation tools such as pilotage, dead reckoning, etc.
>> You don't simply 'pop' into a largely empty area of a chart.
>
> I don't see any difference between the two.
There go those blinders again!
>> The charts have numerous landmarks - lakes, rivers, roads, power lines,
>> cities, racetracks, aqueducts, quarries, bridges, antennas, hills,
>> mountains.
>
> Not enough to locate the boundaries of the airspaces.
If you know how to read a sectional properly and can see out the window 5
miles in each direction or more (10 miles total) you should be fine.
>> All are very discernable from the air in real life. MSFS does not
>> effectively simulate the real-world view of the ground from the cockpit
>> of a small plane, and that is why you are having so much trouble.
>
> No, I'm having trouble because there isn't anything on the chart that
> allows me to locate airspace boundaries in many cases. The boundaries
> are not stenciled on the ground outside the window, even in real life.
No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a sectional.
That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
Judah
news:lagjk254ulfbdfvg9...@4ax.com:
> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> You ought to know where you are anyway, at least roughly. If you do,
>> you also know when approaching an airspace indicated in the chart.
>
> But you don't know when you've cross the boundary in most cases. You
> can only guess. You can find points that are definitely outside or
> definitely inside, but you cannot find the boundary itself.
You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair amount
of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of accuracy your
distance from the landmarks.
> Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
> avoid them and still complete the flight.
Where is this?
>> No, but they don't have to for that purpose. You deduce your position
>> in the topography relative to visible landmarks without having to be
>> exactly over them, and from there you deduce your position relative to
>> whatever airspace depicted on the map, once again without its boundary
>> having to be exactly on a landmark.
>
> That only works if you leave an extremely wide margin for error.
How wide, exactly? Clearly, you're not going to trace a line with your
airplane track along an airspace boundary using pilotage and dead reckoning
in most cases. But it's not very difficult to triangulate your position
using the landmarks you can observe, even in a 5-10nm radius.
B A R R Y
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart.
The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
There are shaded lines denoting E/G space. Most of a chart can be E, so
the E/G line can be difficult to find.
B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.
Gary Drescher
> Sometimes the airspaces to avoid are so close together that one cannot
> avoid them and still complete the flight.
In that case, you resort to common sense. Either you pick an alternative
route (or altitude) that doesn't have that problem, or you establish radio
contact with the appropriate ATC facility so you can transit the airspace
without having to worry about the exact boundary.
However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in congested
areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
--Gary
Gig 601XL Builder
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
>
The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
that it is mostly landmarks.
Roy Smith
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan writes:
>
> > I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> > area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> > Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> > easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
>
> I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
> maps and GPS do it?
What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
system.
Ron Wanttaja
The other factor is "plausible deniability." :-)
The best advice I ever heard was that if ATC accuses you of violating their
airspace, your response should be, "My navigation shows me outside your
controlled area. But which way would you like me to steer?"
A few years back, I was a right-seater on a Helio Courier flown by a Boeing test
pilot during work just outside a local Class C area controlled by the Navy. He
contacted the controller who accused him of entering without permission. The
pilot then fed the controller the riot act. The bounds were definite, and we
were definitely outside them. Later, he told me that the Navy used that
particular station for new controllers....
Ron Wanttaja
Don Tuite
wrote:
I don't know about the rest of the country, but around the SF Bay
area, most permanent airspace boundaries are chosen to coincide with
surface features or VOR radials. (It may be trickier further east,
where all the silos look alike.)
For more help in terminal areas, the back side of the terminal charts
have little drawings of what key landmarks actually look like.
And for temporary areas, the gummint kindly charts them and posts them
anew, superimposed on your choice of sectional, WAC, or GNC, every
morning on http://airspace.nifc.gov/mapping/nifc/index.cfm
Don
Grumman-581
news:1162443185.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
Depends upon how convoluted the airspace might be... Houston is not overly
convoluted and I don't have a problem threading the various airspaces with
just a LORAN, but for the most part, our airspace relies on 8nm inner cones
around the two Class-B airports that we have... The one for HOU is flattened
a bit on top to allow for the I-10 VFR corridor between HOU and IAH, even if
you ignore that part of it and just figure that each airport has an 8nm
inner cone around it, you can squeeze through there with just a minimal
LORAN or GPS that only gives you bearing and distance... Houston probably
wouldn't be that bad if you were even unfamiliar with it, but there are
definitely some areas where having a moving map with the airspace delimited
on it might be rather useful...
Judah
news:1162443185.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
I think it depends on a whole lot of factors.
The Hudson River VFR Corridor in NYC is a tight area, but it easy to identify
the lateral and vertical limits using landmarks the whole way down, even for
pilots who are not from the area. In fact, when I fly the Hudson River, I
don't have time to be looking at the GPS much if at all...
But it also depends on how you define unfamiliar. There is a WHOLE LOT of
information available about flying the Hudson River corridor that a pilot can
use to become familiar with it even before ever having been there in person.
Gary Drescher
> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
I've done a lot of GPS-less flying under the Class B for New York, Boston,
Chicago, San Francisco, and Toronto (well, Toronto is Class C, but it's like
a US Class B). You have to pay attention, but it's not inordinately
difficult. (Most of the planes I rent don't have a GPS, and I have yet to
get a portable one.)
If I didn't feel prepared to do the navigation without a GPS, I wouldn't
feel comfortable even with a GPS. (What if it failed?) It could still be
usefully redundant, of course; but I don't think it's essential.
--Gary
Robert M. Gary
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
> > distance and can figure direction.
>
> I googled for this and found only software.
>
> I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
> using with flat charts on tables in movies? Certainly that might be
> useful, but what about during flight? Chart tables would be awkward
> in the cockpit (although large aircraft with navigators might have
> them).
Two answers. First, when I'm flying my Mooney around at near the speed
of sound I just have a rough idea of where the airspace is and use ATC
and the GPS to avoid it.
However, when I fly the J-3 (and when I first started flying) I carried
a small plotter. You can use it in flight. In fact I'm required to make
sure my students can use it in flight for navigation and diversion. You
can use it in flight.
I still carry a small plotter in the pocket of my seat. I have multiple
scales on it so I can use it for IFR charts too but it also works for
sectionals.
I have one that has a Wizwheel built in and I use it regularly. Its
easier for me to figure TAS using the wizwheel then puching numbers
into the GPS to computer it. The Wizwheel is still a close friend of
mine. When I flew the GPS, the Wizwheel, my watch, and my plotter were
the *only* navigation tools I had.
-Robert, CFII
Mxsmanic
> You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole Mountains,
> and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between that and the Cadiz
> Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know how to read a sectional.
You're too far south, and too far east. The western tip is actually
at N34°14'00" W115°30'00", and the southern border runs along the
aforementioned parallel, but without a reliable indicator of your
exact latitude and longitude in the cockpit, this doesn't help much
(although it can be readily seen from the sectional in this case).
The eastern extreme of the Pinto Mountains meets the southern extreme
of the Sheep Hole Mountains at about N34°04' W115°33', giving your
suggested position an error of about five miles. The adjacent V514
airway is only about eight miles across, so that's a pretty big error.
Unfortunately, by the time you've figured this all out, you've
collided with a fighter jet.
Mxsmanic
> What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
> pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
> system.
Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
airspace violation?
Mxsmanic
> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a sectional.
> That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
a guided missile passing through the fuselage.
Mxsmanic
> You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair amount
> of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of accuracy your
> distance from the landmarks.
Even as you are flying? There are a lot of airspaces to worry about.
> Where is this?
Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.
> How wide, exactly?
A good ten miles or so, at least, depending on many factors.
Mxsmanic
> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in congested
> areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
> precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.
B A R R Y
> Roy Smith writes:
>
>> What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
>> pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
>> system.
>
> Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
> airspace violation?
>
He's being sarcastic. I hope... <G>
The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.
Mxsmanic
> The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
> that it is mostly landmarks.
I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
airspace boundaries, while in flight?
Mxsmanic
> The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
Postage overseas is expensive.
> There are shaded lines denoting E/G space. Most of a chart can be E, so
> the E/G line can be difficult to find.
>
> B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
> numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.
They are all easy to find on the chart, but I'm concerned about
finding them outside the window, without a GPS that shows them.
Judah
news:4ggkk2hoejvrns6sc...@4ax.com:
> Unfortunately, by the time you've figured this all out, you've
> collided with a fighter jet.
Only if you were so paranoid about it that you sat there staring at your
charts and calculators instead of looking out the window.
However, since an MOA is nonrestrictive in nature, and there's no real harm
in being a few miles further outside it's boundary than you could be with a
GPS, looking out the window seems to suffice.
Ron Garret
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
> > that it is mostly landmarks.
>
> I don't see that many,
Then you need to have your vision checked. What do you think all that
ink on the VFR chart is for?
> but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?
That depends on whether you are a competent pilot or not. But why do
you think it's necessary to "continually check them all"?
rg
Ron Garret
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret writes:
>
> > Do you mean how do you find the boundary as depicted on the chart, or
> > how do you relate the depicted boundary to an actual physical location
> > out in the real world?
>
> How do I relate it to the real world? In other words, how do I know,
> as I fly along, whether I'm inside or outside a boundary? Very often
> the boundaries cross largely empty areas of the chart, with no precise
> indications of how to locate the boundary in the real world.
"Largely empty" is not the same as empty.
> > If the latter, when all else fails, some pilots fall back on an advanced
> > technique that is all but forgotten in this age of GPS. It's called
> > "looking out the window for landmarks."
>
> But the charts don't have that many landmarks, and the boundaries
> rarely seem to be based on landmarks; instead, they seem to have been
> surveyed.
There are more landmarks there than you think. Why don't you pick an
example of a boundary that you're having trouble with? Talking about
this in generalities doesn't seem to be productive.
rg
Gig 601XL Builder
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The chart has a metric butt load of landmarks. Hell, I'd go so far to say
>> that it is mostly landmarks.
>
> I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?
>
> --
>
As a matter of fact you do.
For this example the restricted airspace is on your right. You know that on
your track the closest you are going to come to a given boundary is at point
X. You would look at the chart and find something or group of somethings at
or near point X and then make sure you fly to the left of them.
Judah
news:n5hkk21ma849tb85a...@4ax.com:
> Judah writes:
>
>> You can use multiple points to determine your location with a fair
>> amount of precision, and you can estimate with a fair amount of
>> accuracy your distance from the landmarks.
>
> Even as you are flying? There are a lot of airspaces to worry about.
Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?
Do you do this equally as well as you did the first time you got into a
car? Do you need a GPS to do this?
The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.
> Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
> you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
> other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.
Careful calculation is not required. And certainly there is no harm in
leaving yourself a bit of lattitude if you don't have tools to do it with
exacting precision.
Judah
news:29hkk29ni5ghnbjbg...@4ax.com:
> Gary Drescher writes:
>
>> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in
>> congested areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the
>> boundaries with precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
>
> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.
In real life, you don't need to hit buttons to look out the windows.
B A R R Y
>>
>> B, C, and D are easy, they have solid and dotted lines, as well as
>> numbers denoting lateral and vertical limits.
>
> They are all easy to find on the chart, but I'm concerned about
> finding them outside the window, without a GPS that shows them.
Without GPS:
Most B & C, and lots of D airports have a VORTAC on the field. DME
will tell you the distance from the DME station, which is usually near
the center of the field, and the airspace.. Otherwise, you need to
establish where you are using off-field VOR radials and/or chart denoted
visual landmarks. Easy landmarks include airports, roads (especially
intersections), cities, towers, stacks, power lines, water feature,
etc... I haven't flown with an NDB in a long time, so I can't comment
on using those.
This is taught, tested, and developed during training, and good pilots
put a lot of effort into location awareness. With practice, it becomes
easy, possibly second nature.
Typically, you wouldn't fly right up to the edge of sensitive airspace
unless you had a very high confidence in your position. If it's a
controlled airspace situation, you'd get clearance or establish two-way
communications, as required, while still obviously outside the space.
If I'm flying near, over, or under controlled airspace, I'll at least
monitor the frequency, and call if I'm near.
If the space is completely restricted, why poke at the beast? You'd
simply give it a reasonable, without-a-doubt cushion while passing by.
B A R R Y
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
>
> Postage overseas is expensive.
It's not so bad, so keep it in mind. I can only wallpaper so many walls
with old charts...
Ron Garret
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do I know if I'm in the southwestern tip of the Turtle MOA on the
> chart that covers Arizona, for example?
You are mightily confused, my friend. The Turtle MOA is (mostly) in
California, not Arizona.
> There are no landmarks given.
Do you see Cadiz lake?
> I've looked very carefully at sectionals.
Apparently not.
rg
Kev
Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:n5hkk21ma849tb85a...@4ax.com:
>
> > Judah writes:
> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
> effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.
That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
> > Many places. By the time you've carefully calculated whether or not
> > you're in one of them, you're no longer there, but you've violated two
> > other airspaces. Even in small private planes, things move quickly.
Yes, things can move quickly. That's why it takes training to become a
real life pilot. The latter must learn to be constantly aware of the
airplane's location and heading, and to stay one or more steps ahead of
the plane. It's a skill that can get rusty, for sure.
Kev
Newps
Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>The expired chart offer still stands... <G>
>
>
> Postage overseas is expensive.
Yeah, it might cost a dollar to mail a chart to Frogland.
Judah
news:43hkk2llul65f58pe...@4ax.com:
> Judah writes:
>
>> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a
>> sectional. That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
>
> I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
> a guided missile passing through the fuselage.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. You misread the map, and you have no idea what
an MOA is.
TxSrv
> I don't see that many, but even if that were true, do you really have
> time to continually check them all to see how close you are to nearby
> airspace boundaries, while in flight?
This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do. Makes the
flight go quicker. Hell, even under IFR, if there's no cloud
below me, I like to reference a sectional to see what curious
things are down there. And yes, Virginia, that includes while
tending to: listening/talking to ATC, staying on airway (wind dir
shifts), correcting for altitude deviations due to up/downdrafts,
planning when I need a descent should ATC not timely initiate,
reviewing any STAR and the approach plate(s) again....
F--
Gary Drescher
news:Xns986F96E71752...@69.28.186.158...
> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance. Unfortunately, this cannot be
> effectively done on a two-dimensional simulator screen.
I don't think that's true. Except when you're within a few feet of the
ground, depth perception by binary parallax and focal length doesn't come
into play when you're flying; so except for the landing flare, a 2D screen
is sufficient. All the navigation tasks Mx is asking about can be performed
quite nicely using MSFS; in fact, it's great practice.
--Gary
Gary Drescher
news:1162497676.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.
--Gary
Kev
Yeah, but how many simmers constantly flip their view around? Pilots
using it for practice, sure. But non-pilots wouldn't normally do it,
methinks.
Now if you had one of those head-tracker thingies, or multiple screens
with side views, that might be a different story. No work involved.
Still, you wouldn't get the effect of easily leaning over and looking
below you (unless you had a screen below you too. Which is an
interesting idea :-)
Cheers, Kev
Judah
> Judah writes:
>
>> No, you are having trouble because you don't know how to read a
>> sectional. That became obvious in your question about the Turtle MOA.
>
> I'm an excellent map reader. If I followed your suggestion, I'd have
> a guided missile passing through the fuselage.
"You're an excellent map reader. An excellent map reader. Sometimes Daddy
lets you read maps in the driveway.
Uh Oh!
Wopner at 5! Wopner at 5!"
Gary Drescher
> Gary Drescher writes:
>
>> However, airspaces in such close proximity almost always occur in
>> congested
>> areas where a plethora of landmarks let you identify the boundaries with
>> precision. Do you have a contrary example in mind?
>
> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.
If you're trying to simulate pilotage without using paper (or other
off-screen) charts, then you have a challenge that is unrelated to aviation,
or even to simulator use per se. I'm sorry, but I can't help with that (nor
would this be an appropriate forum in which to try).
--Gary
Judah
news:4ggkk2hoejvrns6sc...@4ax.com:
> Judah writes:
>
>> You would observe the Pinto Mountains intersecting the Sheep Hole
>> Mountains, and know that the edge of the MOA is about halfway between
>> that and the Cadiz Lake... It's pretty distinct, actually, if you know
>> how to read a sectional.
>
> You're too far south, and too far east. The western tip is actually
> at N34°14'00" W115°30'00", and the southern border runs along the
> aforementioned parallel, but without a reliable indicator of your
> exact latitude and longitude in the cockpit, this doesn't help much
> (although it can be readily seen from the sectional in this case).
That depends on your goal. If your goal is to stay clear of the MOA, you're
in exactly the right place - a couple of miles outside the MOA. If you goal
is to fly into the MOA through it's southwestern tip, you might just aim
for the north end of the Coxcomb Mountains.
If your goal is to fly VFR between the Turtle and Bristol MOAs, assuming
you were starting at or near TNP, you would probably aim for Dale Lake,
then fly over the Sheep Hole Mountains toward the western tip of Cadiz
Lake. Then you would look for the Cadiz airport and the 3239' peak just
south of Danby (both would likely be easily discernable) and fly directly
between the two, keeping the 1024' hill off to your left. Then you could
follow the power lines up and through, or you could keep the Old Woman
Mountains off to your right a couple of miles until reaching the Clipper
Mountains.
If you were further making your way to Eagle, you'd see the power lines
intersect Rte 40, and turn right aiming for the Colorado River.
I've never been to that area of the country myself, but it sure looks
pretty easy to navigate.
Judah
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
Oh good. I knew SOMETHING good would have to come of these deteriorating
Manic threads...
;)
flyncatfish
Mxsmanic wrote:
> I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
I'm assuming your are talking about cross country flights. Most pilots
get to know their local area really well without a map. If you are
flying vfr you should be identifying visual checkpoints constantly and
if you are on a X/C flight you should be flying your flight plan, even
if you don't file. You need to know where you are and where you are
headed at all times. If it gets too hazy to identify ground references
than you are probably in marginal vfr or worse. If you want to fly
higher than the turkey vultures I suggest you buy a really good gps and
keep the thing updated. Or better yet spend the time and money and get
an ifr rating and go play at altitude with ATC. The thing that
concerns me most when I fly X/C vfr is the TFR's that pop up suddenly,
especially around election time. You can get a briefing and 10 minutes
later the Pres. or VP or some Senator decides to change his destination
to yours, and if you're not talking to somebody to let you know what's
going on.., well good luck. I use to fly more vfr X/C's but not
anymore. Now I just file ifr, go high and enjoy the fuel savings.
FlynCatfish
Gig 601XL Builder
"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4-WdnQFdp-I_yNfY...@comcast.com...
While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.
Gig 601XL Builder
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:g3ldie...@wschwanke.de...
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> I usually use the GPS, because it takes too long to switch back and
>> forth from instruments to window to sectional or terminal chart.
>
> Your original question was how to do it without technology, and your
> questioning that it was possible at all.
>
Wolfgang have you not read his posts? This is his MO.
Laurence Doering
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> The sectional chart is used with a plotter. The plotter measures
>> distance and can figure direction.
>
> I googled for this and found only software.
>
> I presume you mean the mechanical arm-like device that I've seen being
> using with flat charts on tables in movies?
No, the plotter he's talking about is a combined protractor
and ruler made of transparent plastic. The ruler's scales are
calibrated to match distances on aeronautical charts.
You can see what they look like at:
<http://www.sportys.com/acb/webpage.cfm?&DID=19&WebPage_ID=68>
> Certainly that might be useful, but what about during flight?
> Chart tables would be awkward in the cockpit (although large
> aircraft with navigators might have them).
It's possible to whip out a plotter and measure distances and
headings on a folded-up sectional chart in your lap in a typical
light aircraft cockpit, but it's not very convenient.
Typically you'd use a plotter for flight planning on the ground.
Use the ruler to draw a line on the chart along your intended
course, use the protractor to measure the angle between your
course and a north-south line on the chart, and use the scale
on the ruler to find distances.
To answer your original question, in the pre-GPS era most people
would plot course legs that would keep them well clear of restricted
airspace. Make sure you stay near your planned course using a
combination of pilotage and dead reckoning, and you don't have to
worry about exactly where the boundary of the restricted airspace
is.
Seriously, if you want to learn this stuff, you might want to
buy a private pilot ground school textbook of some sort, a plotter,
and a sectional chart or two. Use the textbook to find out how to
plan a flight using a plotter and charts, and then fly it in your
simulator.
ljd
Roy Smith
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roy Smith writes:
>
> > What I have found works well is to just wing it. If I guess wrong, an F-16
> > pulls up beside me and gives me directions. It's really a very convenient
> > system.
>
> Has that actually happened? Don't you risk being cited for the
> airspace violation?
No worries about being violated. I always keep a PBA card in the
windshield.
Wizard of Draws
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan writes:
>
>> I think if you're going to thread tight areas in an unfamiliar metro
>> area these days, you'd better have a GPS with airspace depiction.
>> Sure, you may be able to do it via pilotage, but then again you could
>> easily screw up and bust class B (or worse).
>
> I think a GPS is useful in any case--but how do pilots without moving
> maps and GPS do it?
VOR triangulation. It's technical.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
http://www.cartoonclipart.com
Kev
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.
Depends on what add-ons you have. Many new ones have the terrain
derived from satellite imagery. For example, with MegaScenery New
York, I can fly around a lot of northern New Jersey and actually follow
the roads to my house. People in England have add-ons that reportedly
let them see their house!
And... coolest of all... someone did an addon instrument that
reportedly lets you drive Google Earth in sync with MSFS. So you get
the satellite imagery there along with arrows to airports if you wish
etc.
Kev
Mxsmanic
> Two answers. First, when I'm flying my Mooney around at near the speed
> of sound I just have a rough idea of where the airspace is and use ATC
> and the GPS to avoid it.
What type of Mooney is it? I didn't know there were any that could
approach the speed of sound.
> However, when I fly the J-3 (and when I first started flying) I carried
> a small plotter. You can use it in flight. In fact I'm required to make
> sure my students can use it in flight for navigation and diversion. You
> can use it in flight.
> I still carry a small plotter in the pocket of my seat. I have multiple
> scales on it so I can use it for IFR charts too but it also works for
> sectionals.
I looked up "chart plotter" on Google, but I don't seem to be finding
any mechanical devices, just software for PCs and the like.
> I have one that has a Wizwheel built in and I use it regularly. Its
> easier for me to figure TAS using the wizwheel then puching numbers
> into the GPS to computer it. The Wizwheel is still a close friend of
> mine. When I flew the GPS, the Wizwheel, my watch, and my plotter were
> the *only* navigation tools I had.
What is a Wizwheel? It sounds almost like a slide rule.
Slide rules are obsolete now, but they were (and remain) extremely
well suited to some of the types of calculations that pilots and
others must do rapidly under less than ideal conditions. Does anyone
still use them for aviation?
Mxsmanic
> http://www.flightstore.co.uk/images/prod/prop_1_1241.jpg
Thanks. Still looks a bit awkward to use in flight. I mean, you have
to manipulate the device and the chart at the same time, and you have
no table, and you still have to fly the plane. It looks very awkward.
> You do your flight planning before take-off.
But what if the plan must change during the flight?
> Traditionally, you draw a line on the map along the path you plan
> to fly, you mark it with time ticks, and in regular intervals
> you mark important landmarks that allow you to check that you're
> still on course. You only really have to do
> map work when an expected landmark doesn't show up at the expected
> time, causing you to suspect that you're off course.
The map must get pretty messy after a while, although I suppose that
if you have to buy a new one every month, it doesn't matter too much.
It's hard to imagine squinting at the map in flight. Multiple pilots
have told me that it's possible, though. I'd have to watch them do it
to see how they manage. Certainly reading maps in a car is extremely
awkward, although aircraft can be configured to fly in a more stable
way than a car drives, so I suppose that helps.
Having a copilot would change everything, of course.
Mxsmanic
> No, the plotter he's talking about is a combined protractor
> and ruler made of transparent plastic. The ruler's scales are
> calibrated to match distances on aeronautical charts.
>
> You can see what they look like at:
>
> <http://www.sportys.com/acb/webpage.cfm?&DID=19&WebPage_ID=68>
I see now. Thanks. Still looks a bit inconvenient for use in flight,
although it would be easy enough to use for planning on a desk or
table. Not very expensive, either, compared to most of the other
stuff on the site ($995 for a pair of headphones that costs only $20
to make??). Definitely a rich man's hobby.
> It's possible to whip out a plotter and measure distances and
> headings on a folded-up sectional chart in your lap in a typical
> light aircraft cockpit, but it's not very convenient.
And the aircraft is still flying. I know aircraft can be configured
to fly straight and level for long distances, especially with an
autopilot, but still ... it seems that one could get into trouble
quickly while peering at the chart.
> Typically you'd use a plotter for flight planning on the ground.
> Use the ruler to draw a line on the chart along your intended
> course, use the protractor to measure the angle between your
> course and a north-south line on the chart, and use the scale
> on the ruler to find distances.
That sounds easy enough.
> To answer your original question, in the pre-GPS era most people
> would plot course legs that would keep them well clear of restricted
> airspace. Make sure you stay near your planned course using a
> combination of pilotage and dead reckoning, and you don't have to
> worry about exactly where the boundary of the restricted airspace
> is.
I'm glad that my original question is being answered, thanks.
> Seriously, if you want to learn this stuff, you might want to
> buy a private pilot ground school textbook of some sort, a plotter,
> and a sectional chart or two. Use the textbook to find out how to
> plan a flight using a plotter and charts, and then fly it in your
> simulator.
I'm not sure what books to buy, and I can't buy anything off the Net
because I don't have a working credit card. There are a couple of
good pilot shops here, but their choice of English-language books is
limited (and very expensive, as always), with most stuff being in
French. Similarly, the only charts I can find locally are French
charts, and my simulator flights are mostly in the western United
States. I can find the charts online now, but obviously it's hard to
use this plotter device with an LCD screen.
Nevertheless, I'm trying to use the online charts more for flight
planning, particularly for flights with VATSIM, where others might
notice my mistakes.
Mxsmanic
> That depends on your goal. If your goal is to stay clear of the MOA, you're
> in exactly the right place - a couple of miles outside the MOA.
But the same inaccuracy could put you a couple of miles inside it.
> I've never been to that area of the country myself, but it sure looks
> pretty easy to navigate.
I grew up in the southwestern United States, which is why I like to
fly it in the sim. I know the general orientation of the region,
although I've discovered a lot by flying around inside of it.
Mxsmanic
> You are mightily confused, my friend. The Turtle MOA is (mostly) in
> California, not Arizona.
The chart I'm looking at covers Arizona more than California, it
seems.
> Do you see Cadiz lake?
Sure, it's huge.
Mxsmanic
> He's being sarcastic. I hope... <G>
OK
> The F-16 is a subtle hint that something has gone terribly awry.
Sending aircraft up for interception must be an incredibly expensive
exercise (easily a million dollars a pop, I'd guess), so I should hope
so.
Mxsmanic
> VOR triangulation. It's technical.
It can't be that technical. I've done it (regularly in the days
before GPS). It's the map reading that's awkward, I think. It sure
was for me (I wasn't using huge folding charts, either, but it was
still awkward).
Mxsmanic
> Yes. When you are driving, how do you ensure that you are maintaining a
> safe distance from the guardrail, or from the car in front of or next to
> you? How about from a Stop Sign or Traffic Light?
By looking out the window. I don't search for traffic lights or
guardrails on a map. If I did, I'd be tumbling down a mountainside in
no time.
> Do you do this equally as well as you did the first time you got into a
> car?
Pretty much, yes.
> Do you need a GPS to do this?
No.
> The same sort of judgement of distances is possible when piloting an
> airplane. Someone who learns to fly in the real worlds learns to discern
> three dimensions and estimate distance.
Depth perception doesn't work at distances of more than 15 metres or
so, so the same cues one uses in the real world also work in
simulation.
> Unfortunately, this cannot be effectively done on a two-dimensional
> simulator screen.
See above. It is done routinely. Additionally, full-motion
simulators use collimated projections that place everything at optical
infinity, and they work very well indeed, even though there is no
depth perception at all.
> Careful calculation is not required.
It's required if the chart doesn't tell you at a glance how to
determine the boundaries of the airspace.
> And certainly there is no harm in leaving yourself a bit of lattitude
> if you don't have tools to do it with exacting precision.
Except when you have forbidden areas threatening on both sides.
I wonder if the advent of moving-map navigation aids has made pilots
more prone to fly closely between and around controlled airspaces.
Certainly it seems like a practical advantage of such devices,
provided that they don't fail.
I use an EHSI to fly patterns in the sim, but that is mainly because
it's so hard to look out the side windows (I hope--at least I hope
that visibility is a _lot_ better in a real aircraft).
BT
you look at the ground
you navigate by pilotage
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sr5ik2lm62t5j8hq5...@4ax.com...
>I see tons of restricted areas, MOAs, Class B, C, D, E airspace, and
> the like on charts, but no clear indication of how to locate the
> boundaries of these areas other than by pure guesstimate based on
> looking at the chart. On rare occasions I see a radial noted as the
> boundary of an area, or a radius, but in many cases there is nothing.
> How in the world are you supposed to know when you are inside or
> outside one of these areas, if you are not flying miles away from
> them?
>
> Yes, GPS units and some other devices may provide real-time display of
> one's position with these areas superimposed, but such devices have
> not always been available.
>
Mxsmanic
> That's a good point. While you can pick out some landmarks on a sim
> screen, it's very difficult to constantly rotate your view around and
> get the spatial relationship that you can in real life.
True. You can look to the side or outwards at a few different angles,
but it's not instantaneous.
However, parts of the aircraft block a lot of the view when you're not
looking straight ahead, and those parts would still be there in real
life, so I still wonder about real-world visibility.
> Yes, things can move quickly. That's why it takes training to become a
> real life pilot. The latter must learn to be constantly aware of the
> airplane's location and heading, and to stay one or more steps ahead of
> the plane. It's a skill that can get rusty, for sure.
A few days ago I switched tasks to read a chart (I have to visit a Web
page for that--very awkward) and returned to the sim to discovered
that I had hit a mountain. I was checking to see if I was at a safe
altitude. Fortunately, a new Baron was waiting for my reincarnated
self at my home airport.
Mxsmanic
> A joystick with a POV hat-switch makes it pretty easy to look around.
That's what I've configured, but it still is awkward. First, if you
don't turn off all the cockpit details, there's a pause as the sim
generates them when you change your viewpoint. Also, at least on my
joystick, it's hard to position the hat precisely for 45-degree
angles, and there is still some bizarre interaction with the throttle
and other controls that I don't understand. I still use it sometimes,
though. If it were instantaneous and easier to manipulate, it would
be very convenient. Maybe then I could fly patterns a little bit
easier.
Mxsmanic
> Yeah, but how many simmers constantly flip their view around? Pilots
> using it for practice, sure. But non-pilots wouldn't normally do it,
> methinks.
I don't do it a lot, but that is more because it is so awkward than
because I don't want to. I'd certainly like to be able to just look
off to the right or left, although the aircraft blocks a lot of the
view (you can turn the aircraft off in the sim, but that's cheating a
bit).
> Still, you wouldn't get the effect of easily leaning over and looking
> below you (unless you had a screen below you too. Which is an
> interesting idea :-)
What happens when you need to look down to the right? When I do that,
all I see is the wing. In fact, the wing is a problem on the left
side, too.
Mxsmanic
> While MSFS has some great scenery especially around the larger urban areas
> it isn't accurate enough to navigate by especially in non-urban areas.
Actually it is. Conspicuous landmarks are often specifically included
in the database for navigation, and the general lay of the land is
very accurate. From altitude you can't easily distinguish one barn
from another, anyway, so the general view provided by the sim is
little different from the real thing. The accuracy is high, and the
only real drawback is a potential lack of resolution (depending on how
good your vision is in real life).
I've explicitly attempted pure VFR flight, following only roads or
rivers, and it works fine, even though the roads and rivers don't look
exactly as they do in real life. They are still in the same
positions, and that's what counts. I did fly to KSAN once only to
discover that I was arriving at KLAX, but that's only because I picked
the wrong interstate to follow.
Mxsmanic
> In real life, you don't need to hit buttons to look out the windows.
In a sim, you need to hit buttons to look out the windows.
Mxsmanic
> Example: Say there's a restricted airspace whose boundary is parallel
> to a big road and very close to it. You just stay on the opposite side
> of that road at all times and you're done. Why worry about the exact
> position of a boundary?
Because sometimes boundaries are very close together, and you have to
fly between them. You can't just stay twenty miles away from one
without being inside the other.
> Such narrow airspace definitions aren't very common. It's possible to
> avoid them by planning one's route around the area one feels
> uncomfortable with.
Unfortunately, if you plan to go from one urban area to another, you
see a lot of them. And out in the western U.S. at least, it seems
like most of the land is covered by restricted areas or MOAs.
Mxsmanic
> That depends on whether you are a competent pilot or not. But why do
> you think it's necessary to "continually check them all"?
So that you always know where you are.
Mxsmanic
> For this example the restricted airspace is on your right. You know that on
> your track the closest you are going to come to a given boundary is at point
> X. You would look at the chart and find something or group of somethings at
> or near point X and then make sure you fly to the left of them.
If there's something on the chart at that point. Ay, there's the rub.
Mxsmanic
> This is just getting hilarious. Even w/o an autopilot, it's so
> much easier flying a real airplane than stupid MSFS (have every
> version since 1.0), it's nice to have something to do.
First someone tells me that a real plane is easier than MSFS, then I'm
told that flying MSFS would not make me able to fly a real plane.
These statements cannot be simultaneously true.