AVSIM Publications - NEW!
Simulation's Premier Resource!
AVSIM is a free service to the flight and simulation communities. Please help us keep it that way. Donate what you can today! Thank you for your support!
|DID YOU KNOW?|
File Library Updates!
The AVSIM File Library System will send you an email everyday at midnight EDT (0500 UTC) providing you a list of files, and direct links to those files, uploaded over the previous 24 hours by community contributors. Never miss a day of AVSIM Library uploads again! Sign up is easy and free. You can subscribe to the email list here.
- Milviz Kingair B350i on Pre-Order for $10 Discount
- (UK) Take On Helicopters - bundle edition 90% off!
- Don't miss MMMX!
- Taxi2Gate Mexico City 40% off
- Drzewiecki Design 30% off
- Aerosoft Presidents Day Sale
- Save money by pre-ordering Canberra PR9
- Milviz 350i on Presale Discount
- Aerosoft 737 Cockpit Builder Suite Source Code
- Kingston 240GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive $129.00 for 24 hours
- VRinsight MCP Combo II
- Flight Assignment: A.T.P.
- BUTTKICKER Gamer II
- Anyone have a used TrackIR they want to part with?
- Wanted - Trim wheel
- Sim rig pc parts
- Used EVGA GTX480
- Wanted : standing column yoke
- Ifly 737NGX Cockpit Builders Edition
- PFC Cirrus Flight Console (Serial Port) + PFC Pedals - $600 + Shipping
How do pilots typically set NAV1 and NAV2 radios?
62 replies to this topic
Posted 10 December 2005 - 07:40 PM
>You were using GPS in 1993??Yes, the Garmin moving map GPS95 came out in the summer of 1993, and I bought one. Upgraded to the Garmin 195Map in 1997. Use a Garmin 296 with terrain/ terrain warning these days. Plan to get a 396 with XM Satellite weather, soon. Satellite uplinked weather patterns in mountainous regions is extremely valuable.L.Adamson
Inactive Member_Adverse Yawn_***
Posted 10 December 2005 - 01:51 PM
You were using GPS in 1993??Regardless, with all due respect Adamson, you've missed the point. You don't have any problems because you sound like a 1st rate competent pilot. The real irony of technology is that those that can use it safely and don't what the fuss is about are those who don't need it!What Jim is saying, that for those who are struggling at the back of the cognative drag curve mid flight, technology won't change much. They'll still die. Some people make fatal mistakes and some people don't. All simplifying technology does is move the complexity somewhere else. That complexity still has to be dealt with one way or another.Often, that moved complexity is self-induced. Non-instrument rated pilot departing in marginal weather only because they have a GPS. Without the GPS they wouldn't have departed. The number of Controlled Airspace busts remains alomost the same in the UK, inspite of the common use of GPS. People are still getting it wrong on a regular basis. Maybe not you, but it happens.As for the loss of signal: Very infrequent, but inevitible. Wales is a common blackspot. Probably to do with military ops in the area. The UK CAA often conduct jamming tests. Surely the US mil do too? GPS signals are very very very weak. It doesn't take much. Not all GPS units are RAIM equiped so you may not be aware of your loss of accuracy as a result of losing satellites. Also, multi-path errors from mountainous terrain cause problems (as they do for VOR and ADF).Commercial aircraft don't use GPS in isolation. They cross reference the GPS position with the IRS, VOR/DME and DME/DME crosscuts (where available).GPS approaches are another kettle of fish. In the US, GPS precision appoaches are possible through the use of dGPS and WAAS correction systenms and ground based Psuedolites providing much stronger and extremely accurate signals.
Posted 10 December 2005 - 10:41 AM
All right guys..chill.Let me adjudicate this. ;)GPSs are not toys... they are real life savers and give an easy way to be situational aware.. and that is priceless in aviation.But for learning IFR, its wise not to be dependent on GPS. One should be able to navigate with precision on minimum equipment, which would mean... just flying on one VOR equipment and with a Gyro failure to boot (no attitude indicator and no directional gyro). or something similar.If you can't fly precisely without a GPS... you are no pilot.Edited to add: I am almost done with my IFR... From what I have seen... I plan to have a personal minimum that I would not fly single Pilot IFR without a GPS.And thats the last word.:)Manny
Posted 10 December 2005 - 08:39 AM
>>FINALLY, the ONE flaw in TIA aircraft that the manufacturers>and the FAA have officially recognized is OVER CONFIDENCE IN>THE BENEFITS which is EXACTLY the attitude that you are>conveying in this thread.>Bullsh***Support this....., as I read just the oppositeL.Adamson
Posted 10 December 2005 - 08:23 AM
I noticed, that in your reply to the Aspen incident, that you convienently left out the confusion part regarding the road and the runway. It's all in the report from the flight recorder. They were LOST.....You've harped on the "improper" planning comptency of pilots, although you admit it causes "death" to passengers. And then you dismiss a moving map GPS, which can go a LONG way in rectifying the pilots mistakes, as a TOY.....BTW---- At which point does the pilot become incompetant? 3000 hrs, 5000 hrs????And here is your REBA's band report...."The aircraft hit rising terrain near the top of Mt. Otay, 8 miles NE of Brown Field at an elevation of 3,300 feet shortly after taking off. Improper planning/decision by the pilot. Failure of the crew to maintain proper altitude and clearance over mountainous terrain and the failure of the copilot to adequately monitor the progress of the flight."Do you honestly believe a Garmin 1000 or Avidyne glass panel, would have made NO difference? If so, you certainly haven't been close to one....edit.......... or do we just say, "screw the passengers", and kill them along with the crew, because of the pilots mistakes. You've said over and over, that GPS and Glass isn't supported in NTSB reports. Then great, they must be WORKING!!!! NTSB reports deal with the aftermath of accidents, don't they?Are you also going to dismiss 3D synthetic vision, which is now coming on line with glass panels? If you were a Reba band member, wouldn't you have like to have had one of these devices in front of pilot or co-pilot's face?If using a Reba's band member as an example, since you knew one, bugs you, then we're on the same wave lenght. I had two close friends perish in a flight into terrain accident too. L.Adamson
Posted 10 December 2005 - 03:29 AM
>No YOU loose because you have literally "gone off" on this topic and have resorted to personal insults that are entirely unwelcome to me and I would assume the moderators of this forum.As I have stated repeatedly I have no problem with technolical advances in aviation. It's all cool but A) was so badly overtouted that the FAA found the need to issue rules concerning Technologically Advanced Aircraft because of a rash of accidents in which pilot misunderstanding of the technology was cited as a factor.Regarding the Aspen accident you are entirely and utter WRONG. They WERE NOT "lost" as you so incorrectly posted. Why don't you read the NTSB findings which state and I quote regarding probably causes:"The flight crew's operation of the airplane below the minimum descent altitude without an appropriate visual reference for the runway"Does your GPS enable essentially zero/zero approaches and landings sir? The GIII's did not. The NTSB also found:"Pressure from the customer on the captain to land..."and"The flight crew should have abandoned the approach because the airplane descended below the MDA. Also, the flight crew should have considered diverting to an alternate airport after receiving information about the deteriorating visibility...and the three reports of missed approaches."Taking 15 passangers to their death when flying an ILLEGAL, night approach in nearly zero/zero conditions in Aspen, Colorado is one of the most unconscionable acts of pilot misconduct in the history of General Aviation.Regarding Reba's band, I happen to be in the country music industry, sir, in a fairly significant fashion, and happen to have KNOWN one of her band members personally.But you continue to assign "life saving" benefits to glass instruments that you have NO evidence to support. Here are the NTSB findings on that one:"The aircraft hit rising terrain near the top of Mt. Otay, 8 miles NE of Brown Field at an elevation of 3,300 feet shortly after taking off. Improper planning/decision by the pilot. Failure of the crew to maintain proper altitude and clearance over mountainous terrain and the failure of the copilot to adequately monitor the progress of the flight."Are you telling me that you think that competent pilots need some glass toy to tell them that there is rising terrain at 3,300 SHORTLY AFTER TAKEOFF????? The NTSB says that the pilots planned improperly and that the co-pilot failed to adequately monitor the progress of the flight. But YOU know better. < >What in the WORLD does a pilot need a glass toy for to tell him that he is below the GLIDESLOPE???????? Aren't there little needles that kinda give you a clue about your position relative to the localizer and glideslope??? I seem to remember something about those things along the way to my Commercial, Instrument and M/E tickets. Are YOU an instructor??? I thought so from your past highly informed posts but now that you have gone bananas on this topic, I'm not so sure.FINALLY, the ONE flaw in TIA aircraft that the manufacturers and the FAA have officially recognized is OVER CONFIDENCE IN THE BENEFITS which is EXACTLY the attitude that you are conveying in this thread.Rant on bro. Over and out.Jim
Posted 10 December 2005 - 12:00 AM
>As GPS VFR example, if you switch off the GPS and learn to fly>eyes outside with a line on the chart and watch, you will be>very very rearely suprised. If you merely follow the GPS you>will, sooner or later, have an issue. Even if it is due to a>mis-entered way point, or botched last minute diversion>reprogramming, or just a plain and simple loss of signal.huh?....I've planned and programmed serious and "real" mountain flights into a GPS for over 12 years now. Thanks to the GPS, I could plan a more direct route, instead of hop-scothing/criss-crossing VOR to VOR which often meant an altitude change when criss-crossing 180 degrees south.Let's just say a lot of planning went into the flight beforehand, and it's more convienent than un-folding, re-folding various sectionals while the plane banks over into a dive, not to mention knowing exactly where you are, and where alternate/emergency airports, and highways are.........always to the second. In reality, you spend more time looking OUT the windscreen, than at the GPS "line" or sectional maps. With a sectional and other flight planning information, the whole route can be pre-planned with MEA's, mountain pass altitudes, fuel stops, etc. Then.................it's programmed into the GPS, and these day's, the auto-pilot will fly the GPS route if desired. BTW, I just happen to have an auto-pilot that displays the GPS derived heading and destination on it's own little screen. At least that way, you know that the A/P knows! Of course the A/P is using the GPS for heading information. Accuracy is within 50' of the track heading. Try that kind of accuracy by tracking VOR to VOR; it won't happen. The A/P also will fly a track between GPS VOR coordinates with offsets up to a mile, to avoid heavily traveled airways. Neat!I'm SO tired, of the non-knowing, always implying that the "stupid" pilot just merely follows the colored line with no thought to anything else, such as restricted and Class airspaces, towers, terrain, weather, etc that can be displayed on better moving maps.OH...................and ALL those loss of signals???? Seems to happen much less these days, than out of commission VORS and NDB's. Well, at least here in the U.S.edit: Europe is still behind, when it comes to GPS navigation.......sorry. NDB's are relics from the Dynosuar era, as far as I'm concerned. We have a nice one around here. Screw up though, and you'll hit the mountain behind it. Some already have.L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:53 PM
>>Just nearly HALF of CFIT accidents were over FLAT terrain! So,>only 7.6% of CFIT accidents had anything to do with the>existence or lack thereof, of vertical terrain warning devises>of ANY kind.You loose again........Once again, pilots have simply flown into flat ground, while loosing track of altitude, while trying to regain a sense of heading during a missed approach, or while on the ILS itself.And once again, a flashing terrain device or audible warning device can make a difference, or certainly has the potential to do so. Let's go back to the American Airlines 757 "fatal" crash. Here we have last second audible terrain warnings, thank's to the airplanes radar altimeter. But.... too late, as once again, the pilots were "lost". They didn't have the BIG PICTURE which a GPS moving map "toy" as you have called it, could have made a wopping difference....L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:40 PM
>>>Oh c'mon man. The now FAMOUS Aspen accident involving a GIII>was caused by the pilots giving in to the rich charter>customer's CEO who DEMANDED that they go inot ASE IN SPITE OF>near zero viz and IN SPITE OF landing AFTER a known landing>cerfew time having passed.>>Do you think that the pilots were somehow surprised about the>rising terrain in and around the ASE airport?>I've re-read, what you've wrote, and shake my head in amazement! When it get's to the heart of the subject, the pilots confused a highway & the runway location. This would have been very obvious with today's moving map technolgy..............but you totally discount the facts, and harp on the CEO & curfew side of things. But when it get's right down to it..................they were LOST!!!! A moving map "toy" as you call it, could have again, made all the difference! A paper sectional map...............not hardly...L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:23 PM
>I agree completely with Jim's sentiments. Technology does not>remove the dangers. Technology can simplify and hide the>dangers which in itself can be dangerous. Technology tends to>encourage a more reative than proactive approach to flying. >Like I said to Jim,Ask Frank Sinatra's mother.....Or Reba McEntire's band .......What they might think, if they were still around......Pitiful....L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:20 PM
>>So, YES, a sectional, a working altimiter and a 180 degree>turn WILL save A LOT more lives...if they were USED...then any>terrain avoidance device that ever has been invented and>conversely, no terrain avoidance device will save ANYONE who>doesn't use it or gets themselves into situations where using>it will not and cannot save them.Ask Frank Sinatra's mother.....Or Reba McEntire's band .......Both aircraft hit rising terrain after departure, where the airplanes symbol on a moving map, would have most likley, have made a he## of a difference in the outcome. But hey............ pass this technology off as a "toy"!!!I'm now totally convinced; you sound like the type of guy, who really hasn't used glass, or moving maps to any real degree. Too many that have, think differently. Those that "have not" tend to claim, exactly what you're saying, and go all out to make a very convincingly, but "weak" point. Are you aware, that a board of investigation recommended moving map GPS after investigating the Ron Brown 737 and Columbian 757 crashes? Or do we just play stupid, when much better technology exist's for someone who just happens to need it? You seem to be the type, who believes it will always happen to the "other" guy! Remember the Navy handing out hand-held GPS's to F-18 pilots? Ever see the research program that compared beginning "glass" students to basic "steam guage" students? You loose!I side with Richard Collins of Flying Magazine, myself. He's about as pro GPS as it gets these days. Farthermore, I don't believe I agree with anything you've said. Quite frankly, you're behind the times, IMO! Your not flight instructor, are you? If so, I'd recommend students get another. Your train of thought is in the past, and getting passed by quickly!......................................................Okay.................. next subject...XM Satellite Weather overlays on a moving map GPS screen. Worth it or not?I don't know "one " pilot, who has really used the system that would now want to do without it. And I personally know, or have heard from many. But hey, it's a GPS screen and not a paper sectional. Best thing since GPS, they say! But then, you don't care much for GPS.... So what if it does a much better job than most commercial aircraft's radar systems for providing a much more accurate picture of active weather for hundreds of miles in all directions, not to mention the display of a lot more information such as current weather patterns, TFR's etc.L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 01:08 PM
>Thanks for that, Manny, that's just the kind of IFR book I'm>looking for. >>>edit: holy smokes Amazon has a link for it for $100 >Luckily it looks like it can be obtained from Skyroamers>Publication directly for $35.00. JMR. Yeah, it is a little pricy.. but for a real IFR pilot or student. Its worth every penny. the book or manual is nothing much to look at. no color pictures or anything. But the focus there is the "HOW to" part rather than the "What" are the various procuedures that you get in other books$35 = 1 hr IFR instuction. ;)
Inactive Member_Adverse Yawn_***
Posted 09 December 2005 - 07:31 AM
I agree completely with Jim's sentiments. Technology does not remove the dangers. Technology can simplify and hide the dangers which in itself can be dangerous. Technology tends to encourage a more reative than proactive approach to flying. As GPS VFR example, if you switch off the GPS and learn to fly eyes outside with a line on the chart and watch, you will be very very rearely suprised. If you merely follow the GPS you will, sooner or later, have an issue. Even if it is due to a mis-entered way point, or botched last minute diversion reprogramming, or just a plain and simple loss of signal.
Posted 09 December 2005 - 03:53 AM
>Oh c'mon man. The now FAMOUS Aspen accident involving a GIII was caused by the pilots giving in to the rich charter customer's CEO who DEMANDED that they go inot ASE IN SPITE OF near zero viz and IN SPITE OF landing AFTER a known landing cerfew time having passed.Do you think that the pilots were somehow surprised about the rising terrain in and around the ASE airport?And what does the accident report you posted prove? All it says is that the pilot was cleard for the ILS and then hit the rising terrain. It says nothing about any flight emergencies and there likely were none since the pilot didn't report any to the controller.But absent any enging/airframe problems the pilot MUST have busted minimums and you do not need terrain avoidance devices to remain on the glideslope and if you remain on the glideslope you don't hit any rising terrain.Look, terrain avoidance toys are cool and they MAY prevent the occasional RARE loss of life that COULD NOT have been prevented by normal pilot competence. But read the stats. According to the Flight Safety foundation, LARGE JETS (60,000 pound MGW) CFIT accidents actually ROSE between 1999 and 2002 and were at the same level as 1994/95 IN SPITE of the proliferation of GPWS systems in that part of the fleet.Also, note the following from a noted aviation safety organization:17% of all GA fatalities are due to CFIT CFIT accidents are fatal 58% of the time. CFIT accidents occur 64% of the time in daytime and 36% at night 51% of CFIT accidents occur in IMC, 48% in VMC and 1% unknown. Impacted terrain was flat 45% and mountainous 55%. Just nearly HALF of CFIT accidents were over FLAT terrain! So, only 7.6% of CFIT accidents had anything to do with the existence or lack thereof, of vertical terrain warning devises of ANY kind.So, you tell me what portion of the 7.7% was associated with vfr pilots venturing into IFR conditions and losing control of the ship, in which case the toy isn't going to save anyone. I don't know the number but it is a BIG one.I enjoy your perspective and respect your love of gadgets but I had a letter to the editor printed in Flying Magazie about a year ago which suggested that the gadgets that cause the TIA designation (including moving maps etc.) on the theory that too many pilots will fly TIAs without knowing how to use the gadgets.The followining month, Flying ran an article that showed I was exactly correct and certain noted manufacturers of TIAs totally revamped their "training on sale" programs for that precise reason.So, YES, a sectional, a working altimiter and a 180 degree turn WILL save A LOT more lives...if they were USED...then any terrain avoidance device that ever has been invented and conversely, no terrain avoidance device will save ANYONE who doesn't use it or gets themselves into situations where using it will not and cannot save them.Regards,Jim
Posted 09 December 2005 - 02:55 AM
>Save your hair partner..If you pull it out by the roots it might not grow back!! (-:First, it is entirely conjecture as to whether the 296 "WOULD HAVE" saved the day. It MIGHT have but with a total engine failure who is to say that while avoiding ONE instance of rising terrain, they WOULD HAVE avoided the NEXT rise?And as a fellow student of accident reports, I am sure you know that the VAST majority of CFIT accidents DO NOT involve total engine failure or ANY engine failure.And yes, I have read "A case for a Garmin" and happen to own Garmin stock but I have also read NUMEROUS other articles...such as the one from which the following quote was taken:< >Here, these professional pilots had terrain avoidance technology and simply didn't use it.And by the way, Nimitz hill is clearly depicted on sectional charts and which, while not required on IFR missions does not relive the pilots from knowing ALL factors related to the safety of flights. Rising terrain on the approach course is quite clearly one of the knowledge items that the regs require.Hey, terrain avoidance technology is cool and in RARE CASES it might be the ONLY resource that would save lives.But as my post intended to suggest, the VAST MAJORITY of CFIT accidents are due to pilot error that DID NOT require terrain avoidance technology to prevent.AGREED that the best intentioned human beings make fatal mistakes but MOST CFIT accidents are not made by the best intentioned pilots but rather scud runners/macho dudes who enter IFR conditions without training etc...as your and my reading of the accident reports proves conclusively.FINALLY, my post clearly had to do with controlled flight into rising terrain NOT crashes assosiated with engine failure which is an entirely different subject sir.Had the aircraft in your example been under normal power, then there would have been no flight into rising terrain...assuming the pilots had a sectional that clearly depicts terrain features or were on an IFR flight in which case they would have adhered to the MSA/MEA along the route. Regards,Jim
Posted 08 December 2005 - 11:23 PM
Hi Manny,If I correctly recall who Ralph Butcher is, he's a retired UAL B744 captain who is active in flight instruction and writes articles in the AOPA Flight Training magazine. I really enjoy those artcles every month, and they certainly show his years of experience behind a yoke in the left seat.Bruce.
Posted 08 December 2005 - 07:09 PM
IF anyone here is interested in learning serious IFR flying... with VOR, ADF etc... I would suggest this book.A Skyroamers Publication "Instrument Flight Training Manual" by Ralph Butcher.This is not the million and 1 books out there explaning IFR procedures like Jeppessen or Rod Mochardo or Cessna or Kings school. For that.. I suggest you download the free version from the FAA. they have an wonderful IFR procedure book in PDF. whats so special about ralph Butcher? Well.. don't you wish..when you start your IFR lesson and IFR instructor starts the preflight brief and then he/she is talking to you in the plane and then he/she talks to you post flight briefing....that someone is taking down notes. Well..this book is basically that. Heuristics. Easy to remember thumbrules that you can use...no matter if you are flying an ADF or a VOR procedure... you are consistent in your thought process and simplifcation.like this eg.For every heading..what is the reciprocal? what is the reciprocal for 234? just deduct 2 from the first number (0), add 2 to the second number (5) and keep the third number (4) = 054.what is the reciprocal of 054? can't deduct 2...so add 2 to the first and do the opposite (subtract 2 from the second) and keep the third number.Simple things like that are some asides you get... that make complex problems so simple.This book is about the art of flying IFR. I love it. I have tonnes of IFR books..this is unique for real IFR flying. Manny
Posted 08 December 2005 - 01:35 PM
As I've stated earlier, I'm intensly pro- moving map GPS, as with the newer types that provide color renditions of terrain, as well as the airport and runway in relation to the terrain. The following is a NTSB report from last week. At this point, I can only speculate. But I'm very aware of flight into terrain accidents, while in IMC on instrument approaches, or flying a missed approach. Just look at Aspen, Colorado as an example. A good moving map display can do, within less than a second, what a sectional chart, VOR's, and NDB's can never do. It can simply get you back on track, while avoiding possible high terrain -------- with one quick glance. They say that a "picture" is worth a thousand words. In cases like these, when an aircraft moves forward at the rate they do, a "picture" can shave the few precious seconds sometimes required in a life & death situation. When the "confused" mind only has a few seconds to determine an aircrafts position, what would YOU rather have available?If I hear..............one more time, that moving map GPS's are "toys", or not as "fun", or boring.............I'll simply be amazed, that one can't see the future of a tool, that can add an astonishing amount of situational awareness at the highest time of need!L.AdamsonNTSB Identification: SEA06FA02214 CFR Part 91: General AviationAccident occurred Tuesday, November 29, 2005 in Belgrade, MTAircraft: Cessna 425, registration: N701QRInjuries: 1 Fatal.This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.On November 29, 2005, about 1742 mountain standard time, a Cessna 425 Conquest, N701QR was destroyed after colliding with terrain approximately 2.8 nautical miles northeast of the Gallatin Field Airport (BZN), Bozeman, Montana. The airplane is registered to Tech II, Inc, of Springfield Ohio, and was being operated by the pilot as an instrument flight rules (IFR) personal cross-country flight under the provisions of Title 14, CFR Part 91, when the accident occurred. The private pilot, the sole occupant of the airplane, was fatally injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight that originated in Algona, Iowa, approximately 3 hours and 47 minutes prior to the accident.Preliminary air traffic control (ATC) communications transcripts of the accident flight showed the pilot was cleared, by Salt Lake City Center, for the ILS (instrument landing system) Runway 21 approach at 1738:21. Shortly after acknowledging the clearance, ATC radio communications with the pilot was lost.Salt Lake City Center issued an Alert Notice (ALNOT) for the missing aircraft on the evening of November 29. On the morning of November 30, the wreckage was located in a field about 2.8 NM northeast of the airport.
Posted 08 December 2005 - 09:18 AM
>>A Sectional, a working altimiter and/or a 180 degree turn are>all we need. The rest is boys with toys...which is FINE...but>it is what it is.>This STATEMENT is making me pull my hair out!L.Adamson --- going back to search lights spread across the country for night time, semi IFRedit: Ever read the article titled "A Case for a Garmin"?Two pilots flying a single engine aircraft over the Sierra Nevada's, that suffered a total engine failure,on the down slope side towards lower valley's, but it put them in and out of the soup. ATC is providing them headings as best as possible, but they hit a rising ridge. Turns out the Garmin 296 with terrain features would have saved the day, and hence, the name for the article. What good, would a sectional and 180 degree turn---- do here?????I have lot's of real case stories, for another time...
Posted 08 December 2005 - 09:14 AM
>>Yes, people are stupid- ..... :)>We do have the stupid ones alright...Two years ago, in a case of get home itis, a pilot took off from the airport next door, headed to Phoenix, Arizona with very low ceilings and a plan to scud run along the freeway for clear sky's about 50 miles away. As the freeway made an offset turn, he followed the wrong road east into a deadend canyon with shear walls. Three 360's before the Bonanza hit the side.L.Adamson