Planes - a - flyin!

[diver123 0]

It sounds like we're just about there... But, I've got a question for all you pilot types: Forgive me if it sounds ignorant...I'm just curious as to how this stuff works:
If the IFR's are allowed again under the stipulation that they file a specific flight plan...Why can't a jump pilot file a flight plan outlining his intent to climb to altitude and then return to the same airport?
"pull high! It's lower than you think..."

[prost 0]

Does that mean we can skydive or not?

[mouth 0]

Thank you....finally a question I can understand, Prost.
So bottom line...jumping or not???

[JMC 0]

I just called Sky Dance and they say no.

[billvon 3,076]

> The only mode in which an autopilot would hone in on a target like that is if it was equipped to
>follow an ILS approach. This would require two antennas set up in the exact right manner on the ground.
Nonsense. Autopilots can be programmed for heading hold, VOR radial tracking, or GPS waypoint tracking - they do far more than follow a localizer. Find the lat/long of a building, set that as a waypoint, program the autopilot for altitude hold and waypoint navigation, and get out of the plane. The GPS will get the plane there to within about 50 meters of the waypoint.
To be specific about the hardware details, take a GPS navigation system like the Apollo 2101. Connect its CDI analog drive output to the tracking input of the autopilot. The navigation system then steers the plane, and will take it along any course you program into the navigation system. These systems are common on part 121 and part 135 aircraft, and more and more part 91 aircraft have GPS navigation systems and autopilots as they get cheaper.
> It would be much easier and effective to just load up a truck, and skip the airplane.
They do that (remember Oklahoma City.) It is easy to stop trucks, as many cities have police. It is hard to stop planes, as few cities have SAMs.
>While everyone is throwing out scenarios, why don't you just have people buy the cruise missles.
Terrorists have trouble buying cruise missiles. They're also sort of hard to launch. If you go to General Dynamics with a suitcase of money, they won't sell you one (believe it or not.) It is much easier to buy an airplane, and an airplane tooling around, say, the San Onofre nuclear power plant isn't that unusual, whereas a cruise missile launch from an offshore ship is quite unusual, and is more likely to be noticed.
-bill von

[MC208B 0]

VFR flight plans are for trips of more than 25 nautical miles in length. So, unless you're taking the scenic route to altitude, won't work :)

[MC208B 0]

Bill, you're obviously up to speed on avionics but I think the post about having the 2 antennas required is far more accurate than yours. True, an AP can do all that you said it can but the only way it can descend all by itself is on a coupled approach (localizer/ILS). Of course if the building is high enough and there are no obstacles, the alt hold and nav functions would work just fine I guess. But hey,we're skydivers here, not terrorists!!! Mike

[Slappie 9]

Enough..... Please....
My New Website with 24hr Chat

[Shark 0]

I'm not sure if it has already been posted, but here's a link to the latest ops pertaining to GA flights, etc. The FSS gave it to me. http://www.nbaa.org/

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

Requiring all flights in the US, both VFR and IFR, to get a clearance before takeoff would give ATC more control over who takes off. Right now, of course, this isn't required for VFR - but that could change.

I seriously doubt it.. This would cause a serious increase in workload for an already overloaded ATC system.. Possible, but highly unlikely..

Quote

I think they could potentially pose the greatest threat. A C206, loaded with 1500 pounds of ANFO, and equipped with a three axis autopilot, makes an extremely effective cruise missile. Since they can currently take off from uncontrolled airports, there is very little the government can do to stop such weapons.

Or, somebody could fill a van with the same thing, point it towards their target, put a brick on the gas pedal and lock the steering wheel in place, and get out.. Or they could park it in a garage under the target.. Or they could just drive the thing in and detonate.. Which situation do you think more likely?

Quote

It seems like this would be a lot simpler than taking over a 767 and flying it into a building.

I don't think they used airliners because they thought it was the only thing capable of inflicting the damage they wanted to cause - but more because they were trying to make a statement..
Mike

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

The only mode in which an autopilot would hone in on a target like that is if it was equipped to follow an ILS approach. This would require two antennas set up in the exact right manner on the ground.

Actually, if you have an airplane with a good autopilot, that is linked to a GPS, you can make it fly waypoint to waypoint.. If your autopilot has a VNAV function(which is available for most GA airplanes), you can make it fly specific altitudes/profiles as well..
It would not be easy or cheap, but it's possible..
Mike

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

Does that mean we can skydive or not?

Who knows for sure, but my guess is no skydiving until they release VFR flights.. While there is no specific regulation that prohibits jump planes from filing and flying IFR flight plans(which is what they do on high altitude jumps - at or above 18,000MSL) for skydiving operations, it is not likely that ATC will allow it at this time..
Mike