T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
VGT or HND from SoCal when I am piston is VFR - Direct. LAS? IFR pick up in route. They have been known to deny guys into the bravo that are VFR.
Night? IFR.
Night? IFR.
STARs and speed/altitude restrictions in a GA plane
- Thread starter SlumTodd_Millionaire
- Start date
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I get cell service locally just about everywhere that it shows there is no signal. In other words, not a reliable site. In reality, almost all airports with full service fueling will have cell coverage.
I prefer to have more than a few miles of gliding distance, thanks.
Remember, I'm the guy who thinks that virtually all VFR should be outlawed. I think it's absolutely insane in the 21st century that we have people flying around in the NAS without talking to anyone.
But from a purely practical standpoint, I see no benefit and lots of downsides to flying VFR. On an IFR flight plan, ATC is responsible for traffic separation. They keep you out of restricted airspace and TFRs. They let you know if someone ahead has reported turbulence or icing. They hand you off to approach and tower so you aren't having to keep track of frequencies. Basically, they're doing all the work and keeping you out of trouble. I'll never understand why some people prefer VFR on cross-countries. I think it's just some sort of anti-authority bent or something. "I'll do what I want when I want without having to ask for permission!" Okay. Have fun with that. Let me know how the TFR bust goes.
Would be nice, but the altitudes I fly at, I generally can't talk to an ARTCC or anyone else most of the time. Nor can they see traffic, or even me, in order to provide traffic avoidance.
I don't think its an anti-authority bent necessarily. For my case, it's not practical. For others? Maybe they just enjoy actually being a pilot; rather than a living, breathing autopilot.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Solutions to that problem are available with the right technology. The only reason you can't talk to an ARTCC and that they can't see you is because we're still using 1960s technology. Every artificial object moving through the NAS should be tracked.
Yes, because "being a pilot" necessitates clinging to archaic ideas.
It's because I'm at 500 AGL or below in mountainous terrain in the middle of nowhere usually. Just no radar coverage down there. There's SATTRACK, sure, if they're utilizing that. But for the purposes of positive radar coverage and tracking, its not practical for ATC to bother. And they're certainly not going to take any kind of responsibility for terrain/object clearance for me. VMC, I'm forced to go VFR. IMC, no reason to go unless something actually mission critical, assuming I'm able to let down into VMC for mission purposes.
1500 AGL is nosebleed altitude for a helo.
Yes, because "being a pilot" necessitates clinging to archaic ideas.
Archaic? Like actually doing some of the work pilots are trained to do? Some people enjoy that. Not everyone aspires to be human autopilot. I don't hold that against them or even look down my nose at them in any kind of uppity way. To each their own. They're not bothering me.
VFR has its place, just as IFR has its place.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yeah, that was my point. We have the technology available where we shouldn't be relying upon radar to track aircraft in the 21st century.
Well, people who aren't talking to anyone are bothering me.
And as that comes along and supplements to radar for ATC use advance, that's luckily becoming more and more a solved issue.
To me, it's one of those "depends where they're doing it", kinds of things.
At some fairly busy uncontrolled GA airport? Legal? yes. Safe? No. Prudence says not wise to do.
Whereas in the pattern at Podunk, USA small field in the middle of nowhere? Legal? Yes. Safe? Sure. Prudence says can be safely done.
Assuming people are reasonable and prudent......
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yeah, we disagree on that. Podunks have midairs, too.
You're never going to completely prevent midairs. Midairs are still going to happen everywhere, and for many of the same reasons they've been happening. We're not exactly discovering brand new ways to bring two aircraft together in the same exact piece of airspace.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, but we don't not make advances that reduce accidents just because it doesn't completely eliminate accidents. TCAS has vastly reduced the risk of midairs. Has it eliminated them? Of course not. But we don't throw out our TCAS units, because they make things exponentially safer.
People flying around without talking to anyone is a hell of a lot more dangerous than requiring everyone to be talking to someone, and requiring everyone to be positively tracked. We have the technology. We should be implementing it instead of clinging to archaic nonsense like "see and avoid."
People flying around without talking to anyone is a hell of a lot more dangerous than requiring everyone to be talking to someone, and requiring everyone to be positively tracked. We have the technology. We should be implementing it instead of clinging to archaic nonsense like "see and avoid."
No one said to throw anything out, TCAS or otherwise. Bring them on. All good stuff. No one says to throw out VFR either. VFR can be done safely, and is done any number of times per day safely. IFR simply isn't practical for all air operations across the spectrum.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Summa y'all would be well served to spend some time looking at what actually kills statistically significant numbers of pilots.
Mid airs ain't it, especially bolt from the blue ones.
Mid airs ain't it, especially bolt from the blue ones.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I would say that 12 mid-airs per year is "statistically significant."
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Compared to the number of guys that stall spin, cfit, or lose control imc, it's really not.
milleR
Well-Known Member
Unless you're proposing a tower at every single airport in this country that number is miraculously low.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
milleR said:
No, but I think "virtual towers" are certainly within our technological grasp. It's only a matter of will and funding.
And even a tower is no guarantee of no midair, as all a tower is responsible for is sequencing, not separation.
The virtual tower idea is interesting though.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
It seems to me that many of the high profile MACs recently have been at towered airports.