 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
charles.k.scott@dartmouth
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
 |
|
It took five visits to the the airport for two sessions with ground
school and three flights but I finally finished and am legal again for
another two years.
Unfortunately, the instructor I ended up with had a bit of prejudice
towards my flying ability and he made sure we went over just about
everything that could possibly be covered, which in the end is not a
bad thing.
Since I got my PPASEL two years ago, I haven't really done much in
terms of cross country flying. I really can't afford it. So I've
just flown locally, taking friends and family up to see the Upper
Connecticut River Valley from the air. This meant that I rarely paid
much attention to the weather, I just flew when it was nice out. And
of course I never bother checking with DUATS so my reading skills,
which were never great, were eroded somewhat.
A few weeks prior to my starting the BFR, I flew up to Burlington VT
to pick up my son who was flying in from NYC. I chronicled that
flight here. The flight went reasonably well although visibility was
marginal. Any worse and I wouldn't have taken off. My only problem
was ground communication with the tower at Burlington. My responses
appeared to put them on edge and they carefully sheparded me around to
get to the runway to takeoff.
Turns out, my future BFR instructor happened to be in the tower with a
student for a visit and heard all the communications gaffs. Needless
to say, in the event, he focused on that intensely.
Regarding the instructor, "intense" is a good word to use to describe
him. He's ex airborn, a sky diver, has more ratings than I can
remember, is an aeronautical engineer, was a bush pilot for several
years in South America and Canada and is still young! I commented on
how much he's packed into his life so far and he replied that up until
last year, he hadn't owned a TV nor did he watch programs, he just
read. My feeling was that he probably read aviation manuals...
In addition, he's building a racer for the Red Bull competion and
builds single airplanes for a business on the side. Most impressive,
but tough to please.
All his conversations involved an intense look/stare and it's pretty
intimidating. But I figured he really did know his stuff and if he is
willing to sign me off, I will have done well.
During the preflight, I casually mentioned that the tires looked low,
he glanced at them and told me they were flat and I should have a tire
guage in my flight bag, and checking tire pressure should be a part of
each and every preflight. I didn't have a tire guage on me, so I
walked to the hangar and got a guage and a mobile air tank and went
back to the airplane. I was about to ask him what to put in the tires
when I noticed that he was holding the POH, which he handed to me,
silently. I decided to look under maintenance and found the tire
pressures. All three tires were under 10 psi, a very dangerous
condition. The front is supposed to have 43 psi and the rears 35
each. I've been checking them ever since during each preflight and
have never found them correct, having to add air each time. So this
was a good lesson.
My initial flying did not impress him, with an overcontrolled landing
that ended up somewhat sideways. He demanded to take over during the
second landing for a go around, which I acknowledged, but did not
release the controls as I was trained to follow along on the controls.
He did not like that and yelled for me to release the controls, which
I immediately did. I explained what I had been doing and that I was
taught that way and he apologised and said that we probably should
have briefed procedures prior to flying. But I was not to handle the
controls if he called for the airplane from now on. I agreed to
follow that procedure.
Things actually got better after that with me ending up doing a
difficult glide to touch down from a long distance out. Initially the
CFI thought I was too high to make to an end of the runway touchdown,
which was his requested aiming point, but I told him that I thought I
could do it if I slowed down enough to get into the high descent rate.
Slowing to 55 with full flaps GREATLY increased our descent rate and I
managed to plant it on the first part of the runway as requested. My
ability to guage my glide to touchdown during this and subsequent
flights was one of several flight skills he thought was above average.
We ran out of time so I booked time a week later to finish. This
flight involved the usual aerial maneuvers like turns around a point
and steep turns as well as the required engine out approach to a field
demonstration. I wasn't taught the way he wanted me to perform it so
it was a learning experience. He wanted me to be over the field,
downwind at 1000 feet AGL, then do a 180 to land. I like this
technique, I just hadn't ever tried it before, although it of course
mimicks what happens routinely in the pattern nearly every time you
fly.
Back at the field we made two different types of landings and then ran
out of time again.
Booked one more flight a week later.
Saturday was the day and I couldn't have asked for nicer weather. 10
AM and the air was still and visibility was over 100 miles. But most
of the flight was under the hood...
One of the things I've always managed to do well is fly under
instruments and hold courses and altitudes. The day was conducive to
precision flying and once again, intensely concentrating, I manage to
do as requested: Turning to and holding various courses, changing to
new altitudes and leveling out spot on them. Again, the still
conditions made it easy. One thing I kept doing that bothered me was
hold on to the yoke too tightly with my left hand, which kept getting
me into a slight left turn which I had to constantly correct for. The
CFI suggested I ease up on my grip a bit, even fly with just a couple
of fingers holding it.
I stayed under the hood even as we approached the airfield, the
instructor gave me headings and handled the radio contact with the
tower. Eventually I descended to pattern altitude, so I knew we were
close. I was told to remove my hood and found myself on an extended
left base for runway 18.
Gradually reducing power, I kept the flaps up and made a decent
landing. The instructor likes to have his students practice landings
without flaps, so most of the time that's what I did.
One more landing making an attempt to land with my right wing slightly
low to counter the virtually non existent right cross wind and I was
done.
The instructor was in the end, pleased with my flying skills saying
that I demonstrated an above average skill level, and in addition, I
learned a LOT.
One thing that he harped on CONSTANTLY, was to raise the wing and make
SURE there is no conflicting traffic, even in the pattern. He was at
me constantly about that, trying to get me to do it by habit. He's
been badly scared by airplanes being where they shouldn't be in the
pattern and consequently really stresses looking anyway even, when in
the pattern and supposedly under the watch of the tower controller.
Yes I know, it's a class D airport and the tower does not control
seperation in the air, only on the ground. So it's see and avoid
while flying in the pattern.
All an all a good learning experience. Next time I will be more
prepared although I still don't bother checking with FSS before every
flight since I only fly locally and only fly when the weather is above
average. Speaking of the weather, during the ground portion, we went
over the DUAT's symbology and I finally learned where "br" which means
"mist" in FAA parlance comes from. It's from the french word for
mist. Only the FAA would think it logical to add an acronym for a
french word to the all but indecypherable DUATS weather cryptology (if
you don't keep up with it that is) when the world wide language of
aviation is English... In fact, in the Cessna/King syllabus Martha
King had a comment to the effect of how she did not understand why the
FAA decided to use "br" for mist. Now you know.
Sorry this was so long.
Corky Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On 10/3/2005 06:27, [email]charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu[/email] wrote:
| Quote: | It took five visits to the the airport for two sessions with ground
school and three flights but I finally finished and am legal again for
another two years.
|
[ snip ]
| Quote: |
All an all a good learning experience. Next time I will be more
prepared although I still don't bother checking with FSS before every
flight since I only fly locally and only fly when the weather is above
average.
|
Well, keep in mind that weather is only one thing that you would get from
DUATS (or FSS, etc.) ... There's lots of other information in there that
is of importance to your flight, like temporary flight restrictions, for
example.
It was nice to see that you're willing to listen to your CFI and that you
got a lot of great instruction out of it - and that you're a better pilot
for it.
Great job, and thanks for sharing with the rest of us!
[ snip ]
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles.k.scott@dartmouth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:02:11 -0700, Mark Hansen
<meh (AT) NOSPAMWinfirst (DOT) Com> wrote:
| Quote: | Well, keep in mind that weather is only one thing that you would get from
DUATS (or FSS, etc.) ... There's lots of other information in there that
is of importance to your flight, like temporary flight restrictions, for
example.
|
All true, but the airport is in Lebanon NH which is northern New
England and there's not a whole lot going on up here in terms of
TFR's.
Corky Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Hallert
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
Regarding BR in a METAR, my instructor told me to think of it as
standing for 'Baby Rain'. A little tip that I found helpful.
BTW, getting a flight briefing or using DUATS is a great way to avoid
getting in trouble with the FAA. To expand on what Mark Hansen said,
they record the calls, so if you call in and ask if there are any TFRs
or NOTAMS and the briefer says "Nope!" then you have proof that you
made a good effort to get it. DUATS can offer this to a certain degree
too, YMMV.
I call or get DUATS for every flight, even local stuff in the pattern.
I don't ever want to end up in an NTSB report, especially not next to
the phrase "pilot did not" or "failed to".
Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On 10/3/2005 09:05, [email]charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu[/email] wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:02:11 -0700, Mark Hansen
[email]meh (AT) NOSPAMWinfirst (DOT) Com[/email]> wrote:
Well, keep in mind that weather is only one thing that you would get from
DUATS (or FSS, etc.) ... There's lots of other information in there that
is of importance to your flight, like temporary flight restrictions, for
example.
All true, but the airport is in Lebanon NH which is northern New
England and there's not a whole lot going on up here in terms of
TFR's.
|
You may seriously want to rethink that, Corky. TFR can pop up for
any number of reasons, not just national security issues (which have
been all the rage lately). But I won't harp on it - you are PIC
after all.
Best of luck.
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles.k.scott@dartmouth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:12:35 -0700, Mark Hansen
<meh (AT) NOSPAMWinfirst (DOT) Com> wrote:
| Quote: | You may seriously want to rethink that, Corky. TFR can pop up for
any number of reasons, not just national security issues (which have
been all the rage lately). But I won't harp on it - you are PIC
after all.
|
Again, all true and wise. We've never had a TFR at KLEB, to my
knowledge and the local pilots are very good about getting the word
out when there were TFR's anywhere near. When Dubya visits his dad in
Maine, I'd get half a dozen messages telling me about it and to be
extremely careful about flying out that way. Same when TFR's popped
up in Manchester NH.
Like I said though, I don't go very far normally. The one trip I did
take up to Burlington this summer, I did duly contact FSS and made
sure I had all the information necessary.
I'm rarely out for more than an hour at a time and I monitor the tower
frequency while in flight.
Yes I probably should at least listen to FSS before a flight but like
I said, this is northern New England, not some hub near a big city.
There aren't any military installations around here.
Our real problems are buzzards that circle in large groups right in
the landing pattern at various times during the day (I counted 25 one
day all circling en mass) and flocks of turkeys that gather near the
runway and then run across, usually when you're about to land or
takeoff.
Corky Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Foley
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
I try to call 1-800-WXBRIEF before every flight. When I was a student, I
diligently wrote down everything they said. Now I usually just listen for
anything ugly, like TFR, Airmets, Sigmets, and the ever popular 'VFR Not
recommended'. I've never figured out duats.
<charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:12:35 -0700, Mark Hansen
[email]meh (AT) NOSPAMWinfirst (DOT) Com[/email]> wrote:
You may seriously want to rethink that, Corky. TFR can pop up for
any number of reasons, not just national security issues (which have
been all the rage lately). But I won't harp on it - you are PIC
after all.
Again, all true and wise. We've never had a TFR at KLEB, to my
knowledge and the local pilots are very good about getting the word
out when there were TFR's anywhere near. When Dubya visits his dad in
Maine, I'd get half a dozen messages telling me about it and to be
extremely careful about flying out that way. Same when TFR's popped
up in Manchester NH.
Like I said though, I don't go very far normally. The one trip I did
take up to Burlington this summer, I did duly contact FSS and made
sure I had all the information necessary.
I'm rarely out for more than an hour at a time and I monitor the tower
frequency while in flight.
Yes I probably should at least listen to FSS before a flight but like
I said, this is northern New England, not some hub near a big city.
There aren't any military installations around here.
Our real problems are buzzards that circle in large groups right in
the landing pattern at various times during the day (I counted 25 one
day all circling en mass) and flocks of turkeys that gather near the
runway and then run across, usually when you're about to land or
takeoff.
Corky Scott
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles.k.scott@dartmouth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:52:11 GMT, "Steve Foley"
<steve.foley (AT) DELETE (DOT) att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I've never figured out duats.
|
I learned just enough to be able to pass the written, and had not
glanced at duats for two years since then. Until now.
Soap box mode on: Duats type information was the best there was back
fifty years ago. The information came out on teletype machines and
they had limited space on which to type out characters, so the FAA
diligently worked out cryptography that got a lot of information in
the limited space.
That was then, this is now. From an operational/understandle point
of view, it's VERY difficult to use on several levels. You literally
have to lay out your flight plan, choose airports near your flight
path and then query duats for their reported weather. You can't see
it (the weather), you can only interpret what the coded information is
saying, laying in trends and changes from the various pieces of
information possible. It is the worst possible manner of attempting
to assimilate information. It requires that you 1. Decrypt the
information. 2. Assimilate the information. 3. Decrypt the trends
information. And it's all in your head. You do not see the clouds,
you do not see the motion of the storm movement.
The duats style maps are only just marginally better than character
based information. They take a lot of studying to understand, if you
don't do it constantly.
But it was all there was fifty years ago, other than calling at your
destination and asking them to look outside.
There's absolutely nothing like being able to bring up your flight
path on any of the many computerized flight planning programs, and
then overlay current weather and see what is going on. It's an
instantaneous recognition of the situation, and can now be brought
right into the cockpit overlayed on GPS driven moving maps, albeit for
a largish price. You can even fly around storms at night as if you
had weather radar, although personally, that just isn't going to
happen. Flying at night isn't in my future.
There literally is no longer a need for coded information. There are
no more teletype machines. All the information can be printed out in
plain english. Since it's available that way, why on earth continue
with coded information? What's the point? Isn't it better to make
SURE that pilots understand what they are reading? Why take a chance?
How many newbies forego checking out coded duats for a trip because
it's so difficult to interpret?
Can someone venture a reason as to why the FAA insists on continuing
with coded weather information? I sure hope it's not merely the
incredible inertia that such a bureaucracy has in regards changing
something, even if it's a worthy change. I also hope the answer isn't
just so the FAA can say "gotcha, you didn't check all the information
necessary for flight".
Soap box mode off.
Corky Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yossarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
I have mixed thoughts about your BFR. It's supposed to be a check to
make sure you are safe to fly, not a rehash of every maneuver in the
PTS. A BFR has no "required" maneuvers. But on the other hand you
don't sound like a very safe pilot so the extra instruction couldn't
hurt.
Excuse me for being blunt, but pilots like you who don't get weather
briefings before every flight are the ones who end up making GA look
like a bunch of idiots when you end up in the paper. "Oh I didn't know
there was a restricted area!"
[email]charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu[/email] wrote:
| Quote: | It took five visits to the the airport for two sessions with ground
school and three flights but I finally finished and am legal again for
another two years.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BTIZ
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
but you don't get the TFR for a downed aircraft or forest fire fighting in
the email
BT
<charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:12:35 -0700, Mark Hansen
[email]meh (AT) NOSPAMWinfirst (DOT) Com[/email]> wrote:
You may seriously want to rethink that, Corky. TFR can pop up for
any number of reasons, not just national security issues (which have
been all the rage lately). But I won't harp on it - you are PIC
after all.
Again, all true and wise. We've never had a TFR at KLEB, to my
knowledge and the local pilots are very good about getting the word
out when there were TFR's anywhere near. When Dubya visits his dad in
Maine, I'd get half a dozen messages telling me about it and to be
extremely careful about flying out that way. Same when TFR's popped
up in Manchester NH.
Like I said though, I don't go very far normally. The one trip I did
take up to Burlington this summer, I did duly contact FSS and made
sure I had all the information necessary.
I'm rarely out for more than an hour at a time and I monitor the tower
frequency while in flight.
Yes I probably should at least listen to FSS before a flight but like
I said, this is northern New England, not some hub near a big city.
There aren't any military installations around here.
Our real problems are buzzards that circle in large groups right in
the landing pattern at various times during the day (I counted 25 one
day all circling en mass) and flocks of turkeys that gather near the
runway and then run across, usually when you're about to land or
takeoff.
Corky Scott
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles.k.scott@dartmouth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2005 15:07:33 -0700, "Yossarian" <yossarian147 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Excuse me for being blunt, but pilots like you who don't get weather
briefings before every flight are the ones who end up making GA look
like a bunch of idiots when you end up in the paper. "Oh I didn't know
there was a restricted area!"
|
I'm sorry if I've given you the wrong impression. We have a strong
community of concerned pilots around here and we all stay in touch via
e-mail. I'm at the computer all day every day so I feel very
confident I'd get the word, instantly. Whenever Bush visited
Manchester, we all heard about it. When he visited his father in
Kennebunk, we all were warned.
This is what happens every time there's anything of interest. We
don't live in a vacuum up here.
You may have missed my comment that for the one flight I took this
summer in which I went further than 15 miles from the airport, I did
call FSS and got the weather and filed a flight plan. I did
specifically ask about TFR's. Flying over the horizon on a cross
country is not the same thing as just putting about for an hour or
less within sight of your home airport.
Sorry, but you are over reacting.
Corky Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Foley
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
But it does 'text-message' pretty well.
<charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu> wrote
| Quote: | The information came out on teletype machines and
they had limited space on which to type out characters, so the FAA
diligently worked out cryptography that got a lot of information in
the limited space.
That was then, this is now.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gideon
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
[email]charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu[/email] wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry, but you are over reacting.
|
Cowardly politicians are not the only reason for a TFR. Admittedly, that
was always true. But the cowards, along with their unwitting accomplices
(the media), are looking for publicity with which to hide the twin stenches
of fear and failure. We need to avoid giving them any excuse.
- Andrew
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Beckman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
"Andrew Gideon" <ag7337 (AT) gideon (DOT) org> wrote
| Quote: | charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu wrote:
Sorry, but you are over reacting.
Cowardly politicians are not the only reason for a TFR. Admittedly, that
was always true. But the cowards, along with their unwitting accomplices
(the media), are looking for publicity with which to hide the twin
stenches
of fear and failure. We need to avoid giving them any excuse.
- Andrew
|
Why do you consider the politician "cowardly?"
The TFR is not of his/her making so the stance of the politician is a
non-issue.
Now, if you want to call the Secret Service / OHS / FAA paranoid,
overprotective, overbearing, heavy-handed, etc, those are points worth
discussing.
Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Finally finished Biennial Flight Review, long |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:20:59 -0400, [email]charles.k.scott (AT) dartmouth (DOT) edu[/email]
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:52:11 GMT, "Steve Foley"
[email]steve.foley (AT) DELETE (DOT) att.net[/email]> wrote:
I've never figured out duats.
I learned just enough to be able to pass the written, and had not
glanced at duats for two years since then. Until now.
Soap box mode on: Duats type information was the best there was back
fifty years ago. The information came out on teletype machines and
they had limited space on which to type out characters, so the FAA
diligently worked out cryptography that got a lot of information in
the limited space.
That was then, this is now. From an operational/understandle point
of view, it's VERY difficult to use on several levels. You literally
have to lay out your flight plan, choose airports near your flight
|
Give it fa flight plan, or path and it'll list the airports within a
distance (selected by you) either side of the flight path up to 100 or
200 miles.
| Quote: | path and then query duats for their reported weather. You can't see
it (the weather), you can only interpret what the coded information is
|
You can select recent maps from duats as well as 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM
local time for 24, 48, 36, 48, and 72 hours. You can select a current
weather conditions map wich includes fronts.
| Quote: | saying, laying in trends and changes from the various pieces of
information possible. It is the worst possible manner of attempting
to assimilate information. It requires that you 1. Decrypt the
information. 2. Assimilate the information. 3. Decrypt the trends
information. And it's all in your head. You do not see the clouds,
you do not see the motion of the storm movement.
|
Get it in plain English.
First look at the synopsis.
Look at the SAs for airports along the path. If there are several
SAs for a single airport you know conditions are changing. Look at
the terminal forecasts. Are they forecast for good, bad, improving, or
deteorating conditions? Do the SAs, the synopsis, and forecasts
agree? If not are they better or worse? How does it look along the
route. Are conditions improving or deteorating?
| Quote: | The duats style maps are only just marginally better than character
based information. They take a lot of studying to understand, if you
don't do it constantly.
|
They seem easy enough for me to read and I only look at them once a
week or so.
| Quote: |
But it was all there was fifty years ago, other than calling at your
destination and asking them to look outside.
There's absolutely nothing like being able to bring up your flight
path on any of the many computerized flight planning programs, and
then overlay current weather and see what is going on. It's an
instantaneous recognition of the situation, and can now be brought
right into the cockpit overlayed on GPS driven moving maps, albeit for
|
Again you are seeing what happened maybe 10 to 15 minutes ago.
| Quote: | a largish price. You can even fly around storms at night as if you
|
that weather may or may not be up-to-date. I'd be uncomfortable
relying on any display over 5 minutes old as I've seen very large
aread go down in 5 minutes. That the only thing that's kept me from
replacing my 296 with a 396. When the RADAR display can be guranteed
to always be 5 minutes or less I'll order one. Until then I'll depend
on FSS and only flying IFR without ice or thunderstorms.
| Quote: | had weather radar, although personally, that just isn't going to
happen. Flying at night isn't in my future.
|
Flying at night is fun. It's usually a smooth ride and the visibility
is great. It does take more practice though.
| Quote: |
There literally is no longer a need for coded information. There are
no more teletype machines. All the information can be printed out in
plain english. Since it's available that way, why on earth continue
with coded information? What's the point? Isn't it better to make
SURE that pilots understand what they are reading? Why take a chance?
|
The problem is the automated conversions still screw up although I
haven't read one in years.
| Quote: | How many newbies forego checking out coded duats for a trip because
it's so difficult to interpret?
|
Why not just read the plain text on DUATs.
| Quote: |
Can someone venture a reason as to why the FAA insists on continuing
with coded weather information? I sure hope it's not merely the
incredible inertia that such a bureaucracy has in regards changing
something, even if it's a worthy change. I also hope the answer isn't
just so the FAA can say "gotcha, you didn't check all the information
necessary for flight".
|
Just Call FSS and it covers all those bases.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
Soap box mode off.
Corky Scott
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
