Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by EdFred, Aug 13, 2011.
... 'cuz the Chief can't climb to 5,000 AGL.
Look I'd punch Ed in the face and bust his nose for other reasons but not over this thread. Ed did fine in my book. I'd do what he did myself.
I was 100% VFR. I had about a 10 mile circle of VFR weather. I don't mess with busting VFR cloud clearance requirements around Chicago especially when I know EON is used ALL THE TIME for IFR routing.
Bonanzas and C210s can....
+1. I've seen lots of Ed's posts that I would figure would draw flames . . . but not this one. Good procedure. Good training for the student.
Comes dangerously close to making me like ol' Ed. Close. Not there.
Were it just me I would probably do what Ed did. The biggest problem is if you can't see the airport you might not know it until the impact. A mistaken altimeter setting could make that a reality quite quickly.
Were I a CFI with a student, I would want the student to think through all the possibilities of a good resolution that didn't involve danger from an altimeter setting. Sorry, I have no doubts that lots of NTSB reports conclude with darkness was a contributing factor... There were several things to try before giving up and doing the balls out approach. I'd rather my students thought things through before doing the gonzo. That is, if I had any. Sorry, my largest concern in teaching is to get my students to think things through.
Landing at night at Gaston's, moon or no, sounds like utter and near suicidal idiocy.
Very true, but sometimes you can let your students go through with wrong decisions -- as long as you can prevent the fatal end.
The one time I landed with no runway lights there was no doubt where the runway was (street lights on all sides of the airport), it was late (very late -- no cabs, crew cars, etc), the A/C landing and taxi lights were working fine, I was familiar with the airport, and we did a low pas first to establish there was no wreckage that had knocked out the lights (seriously).
After we landed we talked through all the options. The final summary was, "I'm OK doing that if you're with me, but I'd fly to the nearest large airport and land and pay for a hotel."
Maybe for a an inferior Buckeye. I would do a Gaston's night landing again, and again, and again. You can make out the ridges against the sky, you've got all the cabins lit up almost exactly parallel to the runway, and can use them basically as runway lights. You offset yourself from them about 150' -200' or so, and you are pretty much centered on the runway. You've got the "goalposts" to really line you up with the runway, and before you are below the treetops you can already make out the runway edge markers. I don't think I even bothered using the altimeter because there are so many altitude cues that can be used otherwise. In some ways it's easier than trying to find a grass strip in Kansas.
However, I had taken off and landed there probably 20 times prior to doing that.
It depends on the definition of night. I was there when you landed. It was dark but it wasn't PITCH DARK. With an overcast, it gets so damn dark that you can't see a single thing looking down that runway.
Well, it was more than an hour past sundown, and was 6SM and haze.
There isn't enough to go around (sorry, take a number).
Hmmm.. Looks like the numbers are up to '2' now.
Please go back and look at my post. I said "dangerously close." If I had actually run into everything I've come dangerously close to I wouldn't have lasted nearly long enough to have all this gray hair.
So the number's still at 1. The loneliest number.
Good. For a minute there I thought you were competition.
You just saved yourself a punch in the throat.
Since you seem to be averse to Ed having other people (even other guys) think he's okay . . . I'm gonna encourage him to check the stove for the rabbit boiling in the pot after you see him.
You take me way too seriously.
Nah. I just wanted to use the little blue-headed guy in a post.
You must be very lucky, or have some great RF amplifier on board. I can think of several times in the past couple years when no one answered from Flight Service. Terrain. signal propagation, antenna connections. etc etc make radio calls less than perfect. It is not a disservice to FS to say they can't hear you ,or that you don't hear their response. Just another fact of life. Learn to deal with it.
The system's designed to alleviate those problems for the defined service area for a particular frequency in the AF/D for a particular place talking to a reasonably well operating aircraft radio. The RF amplifiers in aircraft only fall into a couple of categories of power level and virtually the entire small aircraft GA fleet is identical. So that comment makes no sense at all if the aircraft's radio system (including antennas) is working properly. Propagation studies are done at the published locations also.
So the only one of your hypotheticals that's likely is that your avionics are broken. Time for an avionics shop visit.
The disservice is in propagating the idea that it's unreliable. If something's specifically broken, report it so a proper NOTAM can be issued and a tech dispatched.
Your post is like people saying "computers are always breaking" or "cars are unreliable", which are both infinitely un-true for well-designed systems running on properly maintained gear.
If you're airborne the amount of overlap in the Lower 48 is high, flip to the next airport's frequency and it'll work if the one right below you doesn't. And Flightwatch receivers are often co-located with FSS radios so that's often an option also.
If on the ground, grab a phone and while getting the info needed, report the problem with the FSS frequency at that airport. This isn't rocket science.
Jesse doesn't need to "deal with" anything. He said the system works well for him. You're funny.
There is a *BIG* difference between trying flight service and not getting through and explaining to the student that it can happen versus not calling flight service at all because they never answer.
What he said.