It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

That's what good pilots do right?

What about just the weekend jocky? the ones that don't check for notam's, that don't file flight plans? The ones that drive down the highway right over the dropzone because they can't navigate a straight line so follow the highway, the ones that think that little airport in that little town is their private little country club and they should eject the skydiving operation because it 'annoys' them?

What about them? Should we dumb it down even more if we can?

Or at least train some monkeys to fly for them.

I think good pilots are the greatest people, but the pool is diluted by the others for sure.

If they violate the TFR, they pay the consequences. Just like if they violate controlled airspace. Knowing where you are and what is around you is basic airmanship. If a pilot is not capable of navigating around a TFR, they need refresher training. If they can’t do it, then they should not be a pilot. If they can’t do it unless it is centered on a VOR and they have DME, then they need refresher training. The task of navigating around a TFR is well-within the standards to be a private pilot. If a pilot says they can’t do it or it is too hard, then they are admitting that they do not posses the necessary skills to be a private pilot.

Derek

[kallend 2,175]

Just to be clear, I have not stated that it can't be done.

I have stated that the way the FAA has implemented it requires considerably more effort (such as transcribing the TFR to the chart and then triangulating from VORs) than had they co-located the center on a charted nav fix such as an airport, VOR or intersection.

And Viperpilot STILL refuses to recognize the FAA rules about calibrating ATC radars to indicate restricted areas. They can't (legally) just draw a circle on the screen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Just to be clear, I have not stated that it can't be done.

I understand, you are saying that the FAA could have made it easier. I am saying that it isn’t that hard. Sure, it is an inconvenience, no way around that, but should be well-within the abilities of any private pilot.

Quote

I have stated that the way the FAA has implemented it requires considerably more effort (such as transcribing the TFR to the chart and then triangulating from VORs) than had they co-located the center on a charted nav fix such as an airport, VOR or intersection.

Of course, then pilots would be complaining that they made it too big just to center it on a nav-aid, and "we are capable of navigating just fine". The FAA wouldn't win no matter what.

How do you expect a pilot equipped only with VOR's for navigation to find their position? How does adding a TFR increase the workload of any other flight using VOR triangulation for navigation?

Mark it on your sectional, and if you are flying VFR, make sure you know where you are and stay out of the TFR. Contact ATC for flight following to back up your navigation. Not a big deal or that difficult. If you are flying IFR, it is even easier since you are in contact with ATC and are better equipped avionics-wise than VFR aircraft. You may also be allowed in the TFR, depending on the specific TFR.

If pilots are expected to remain clear of restricted areas which are not always centered on nav-aids or nice, neat circles, how is a TFR any different?

Derek

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Just to be clear, I have not stated that it can't be done.

I understand, you are saying that the FAA could have made it easier. I am saying that it isn’t that hard. Sure, it is an inconvenience, no way around that, but should be well-within the abilities of any private pilot.

Quote

I have stated that the way the FAA has implemented it requires considerably more effort (such as transcribing the TFR to the chart and then triangulating from VORs) than had they co-located the center on a charted nav fix such as an airport, VOR or intersection.

Of course, then pilots would be complaining that they made it too big just to center it on a nav-aid, and "we are capable of navigating just fine". The FAA wouldn't win no matter what.

How do you expect a pilot equipped only with VOR's for navigation to find their position? How does adding a TFR increase the workload of any other flight using VOR triangulation for navigation?

Mark it on your sectional, and if you are flying VFR, make sure you know where you are and stay out of the TFR. Contact ATC for flight following to back up your navigation. Not a big deal or that difficult. If you are flying IFR, it is even easier since you are in contact with ATC and are better equipped avionics-wise than VFR aircraft. You may also be allowed in the TFR, depending on the specific TFR.

If pilots are expected to remain clear of restricted areas which are not always centered on nav-aids or nice, neat circles, how is a TFR any different?

Derek

Permanent restricted areas are marked on the charts (so no transcribing needed) and are in the databases of even the cheapest handheld aviation GPS receivers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Permanent restricted areas are marked on the charts (so no transcribing needed) and are in the databases of even the cheapest handheld aviation GPS receivers.

It isn't a huge increase in workload to transcribe a TFR onto a sectional. Even with the cheapest GPS, you can plug in the cordinates for the center of the TFR, hit the goto button and it will tell you how far from it you are. Make sure the "distance to waypoint" number is larger that the radius of the TFR. Even easier than VOR triangulation. Again, child's play.

Quote

Don't you love these rules that there is no practical method of complying with other than not flying at all if you don't want to risk getting shot down by an F16?

We have gone from no practical method, to 'it's too much work to transcribe the TFR onto a sectional and fly around it'. Give me a break..

Derek

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Permanent restricted areas are marked on the charts (so no transcribing needed) and are in the databases of even the cheapest handheld aviation GPS receivers.

It isn't a huge increase in workload to transcribe a TFR onto a sectional. Even with the cheapest GPS, you can plug in the cordinates for the center of the TFR, hit the goto button and it will tell you how far from it you are. Make sure the "distance to waypoint" number is larger that the radius of the TFR. Even easier than VOR triangulation. Again, child's play.

Quote

Don't you love these rules that there is no practical method of complying with other than not flying at all if you don't want to risk getting shot down by an F16?

We have gone from no practical method, to 'it's too much work to transcribe the TFR onto a sectional and fly around it'. Give me a break..

Derek

Why do you think there have been 2,000 inadvertant incursions into the DC ADIZ (and that's even charted, no transcribing necessary)? Is the FAA really licensing incompetent pilots (some of whom have been CFIs)? Or is it a fundamental flaw in the way FAA is going about it? I believe it's the latter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why do you think there have been 2,000 inadvertant incursions into the DC ADIZ (and that's even charted, no transcribing necessary)? Is the FAA really licensing incompetent pilots (some of whom have been CFIs)? Or is it a fundamental flaw in the way FAA is going about it? I believe it's the latter.

Because it isn't that hard to get a pilot's license and the currency/recurrency requirements are weak at best. The same reason there are 5 to 10 aircraft accidents every day. The same reason there is a pilot that does all his own maintenance on his mooney which he has installed rails on the bottom because he has landed gear up so many times. The last time he did it, I watched as the tower told him 5 or six times that he didn't have any landing gear and to go around and he still bellied it in. This guy is a CFI and 6 days later that same Mooney was back in the air with a student at the controls without an A & P so much as looking at the aircraft. Because some pilots do not give flying the respect it deserves and do not have their certificates revoked.

You think the FAA makes it too hard to avoid TFR's? Care to explain what is so difficult about it when:

Quote

Permanent restricted areas are marked on the charts (so no transcribing needed) and are in the databases of even the cheapest handheld aviation GPS receivers.

and temporary TFR's can be very easily transcribed onto a sectional? Do you find it too difficult to avoid TFR's?

Derek

[ViperPilot 0]

Hook, you're preaching on deaf ears.

Quote

Do you find it too difficult to avoid TFR's?

There only 3 things to surmise out of this:

1. Kallend is not a pilot, but thinks he knows about flying or...
2. Kallend is a shitastic pilot or...
3. He is the laziest pilot on the face of this earth, in which case I'll owe you a beer Kallend

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Hook, you're preaching on deaf ears.

Quote

Do you find it too difficult to avoid TFR's?

There only 3 things to surmise out of this:

1. Kallend is not a pilot, but thinks he knows about flying or...
2. Kallend is a shitastic pilot or...
3. He is the laziest pilot on the face of this earth, in which case I'll owe you a beer Kallend

I am a pilot who happens to agree 100% with AOPA's position on TFRs and the DC ADIZ. Apparently you disagree with AOPA. 2,000 ADIZ incursions say you are wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Hook, you're preaching on deaf ears.

Ya, you are right. Kallend wants it both ways. He wants the TFR centered on a nav-aid, but not any bigger. He thinks it is too hard to navigate around the TFR, but knows that a private pilot is supposed to be able to navigate VFR around restriced airspaces and even the cheapest aviation GPS will make that task extremely easy. I'm not even sure what he is complaining about. If he is a compentent pilot, he should have zero problems navigating around a TFR, even if it isn't centered on a nav-aid. It isn't a huge increase in pilot workload to mark a TFR on a sectional and navigate around it. I haven't flown in a while (the premier jet I flew a little while ago doesn't really count, but it was a cool flight, 90-degree, 250-knot, 3-G turn while the TCAS was hollering 'traffic'), and I am confident I could avoid a TFR without even half trying. If a pilot thinks that it is too hard to avoid a TFR, maybe they should schedule some navigation training with a CFI to bone up their skills/confidence in those skills.

I noticed he doesn't answer the hard questions.......

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

2,000 ADIZ incursions say you are wrong.

That is your interpretation of that statistic. There was 2054 accidents in 2001. Does that mean the FAA makes it too difficult to safely complete a flight? By your logic, what other explanation can there be except that it is the government’s fault? It can’t possibly be the pilot’s fault, can it?

Derek

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

2,000 ADIZ incursions say you are wrong.

That is your interpretation of that statistic. There was 2054 accidents in 2001. Does that mean the FAA makes it too difficult to safely complete a flight? By your logic, what other explanation can there be except that it is the government’s fault? It can’t possibly be the pilot’s fault, can it?

Derek

The government doesn't manufacture weather or mountains. It does make TFRs.

Why don't you contact Phil Boyer at AOPA and tell him AOPA is full of sh1t?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Hook, you're preaching on deaf ears.

Ya, you are right. Kallend wants it both ways. He wants the TFR centered on a nav-aid, but not any bigger. He thinks it is too hard to navigate around the TFR, but knows that a private pilot is supposed to be able to navigate VFR around restriced airspaces and even the cheapest aviation GPS will make that task extremely easy. I'm not even sure what he is complaining about. If he is a compentent pilot, he should have zero problems navigating around a TFR, even if it isn't centered on a nav-aid. It isn't a huge increase in pilot workload to mark a TFR on a sectional and navigate around it. I haven't flown in a while (the premier jet I flew a little while ago doesn't really count, but it was a cool flight, 90-degree, 250-knot, 3-G turn while the TCAS was hollering 'traffic'), and I am confident I could avoid a TFR without even half trying. If a pilot thinks that it is too hard to avoid a TFR, maybe they should schedule some navigation training with a CFI to bone up their skills/confidence in those skills.

I noticed he doesn't answer the hard questions.......

Derek

I haven't seen a hard question yet.

If a drug company made a test for cancer that resulted in 2000 false positives without detecting a single case of cancer it would be pulled from the market.

Yet you think it OK for the FAA to make airspace rules that result in 2000 false positives without a single "hit". Do you work for the FAA?

Each false positive creates a lot of work and hassle for someone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The government doesn't manufacture weather or mountains. It does make TFRs.

LOL, so you do think it is the government's fault that pilots violate TFR's???????

There was 324 runway incursions in 2004. I suppose that they were the government's fault because the government built the runways.

As a pilot, do you feel that the TFR is too hard for you to avoid?

Quote

Why don't you contact Phil Boyer at AOPA and tell him AOPA is full of sh1t?

I think I'll do exactly that.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I haven't seen a hard question yet.

Here is a few you have dodged:

Do you find it too difficult to avoid TFR's?

You think the FAA makes it too hard to avoid TFR's? Care to explain what is so difficult about it when:

How do you expect a pilot equipped only with VOR's for navigation to find their position? How does adding a TFR increase the workload of any other flight using VOR triangulation for navigation?

If pilots are expected to remain clear of restricted areas which are not always centered on nav-aids or nice, neat circles, how is a TFR any different?

Quote

If a drug company made a test for cancer that resulted in 2000 false positives without detecting a single case of cancer it would be pulled from the market.

Do you think the use of TFR's should cease? I would think that given the choice of grounding all GA or using TFR's, GA would lose. Careful what you wish for.

I am looking through AOPA's web site for the srtical on AZ TFR and can't find it. Can you post a link?

Derek

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

I haven't seen a hard question yet.

Here is a few you have dodged:

Do you find it too difficult to avoid TFR's?

I answered that already. Pay attention.

You think the FAA makes it too hard to avoid TFR's? Care to explain what is so difficult about it when:

How do you expect a pilot equipped only with VOR's for navigation to find their position? How does adding a TFR increase the workload of any other flight using VOR triangulation for navigation?

I answered that already

If pilots are expected to remain clear of restricted areas which are not always centered on nav-aids or nice, neat circles, how is a TFR any different?

I answered that already. You haven;t been paying attention.

Quote

If a drug company made a test for cancer that resulted in 2000 false positives without detecting a single case of cancer it would be pulled from the market.

Do you think the use of TFR's should cease?

No, I told you what I think already. You haven't been paying attention

I am looking through AOPA's web site for the srtical on AZ TFR and can't find it. Can you post a link?

Derek

The TFR is now gone. You do know what "temporary" means, right? Read AOPAs articles about the ADIZ instead, much the same issues and it's still around.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I re-read your posts and couldn't find the answers to my questions and I have been paying attantion.

Quote

The TFR is now gone. You do know what "temporary" means, right?

Well sure I know what temporary means, you should have been more accurate when you said the TFR was for mon and tues. It is still Tuesday. You do know what day it is, right?

This is silly. If you are a competent pilot, avoiding a TFR is simple. If you think it is too hard to avoid them, you shouldn't be in the air. I can't believe pilots are complaining that the TFR wasn't centered on a nav-aid. Maybe they want someone to hold their hand when they fly

You said it was difficult to avoid the TFR and then showed how easy it actually is to avoid. You say adding a buffer just to be safe increases the area too much, but are OK with increasing the area by almost the same amount to center it on a nav-aid. You contradict yourself many times and sound like you just want to complain and blame the government for incursions. I'm done with this. Write your congressman.

Derek

[ViperPilot 0]

I'm not saying the FAA is awesome...in fact, they are pretty big d bags a lot of the time. However, 2000 accidental incursions into the ADIZ means 2000 pilots not paying attention and 100% fucking up on their own. Everyone knows (or should know) that it's there, so there's no excuse for it being a surprise. I don't care about AOPA bitching, just b/c they say jump doesn't mean I do. I generally like AOPA, but I don't agree w/ their assesment on the ADIZ. If a pilot can't avoid it, they need some NAV and SA lessons big time.

[kallend 2,175]

See post #1 in this thread.

1) Do any certified flight instruments display accurately the boundaries of a pop-up TFR? Yes or no.

2) Is the map Viperpilot linked certified for navigation? Yes or no?

3) Is a hand drawn circle on a sectional chart certified for navigation? Yes or no?

4) Do ATC radars have TFR boundaries displayed on them? Yes or no?

5) If ATC personnel hand draw a circle on their radar screen, is it legal to use for navigation purposes? Yes or no?

5) Could security be achieved with a system that is easier to comply with? Yes or no?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Same answer to all of those questions...

You don't need any of that to successfully avoid a TFR, whether it's centered on a city, a NAVAID or my nuts. I don't need any of those and it would take me about 6-9 sec to find out where I am and avoid the TFR using simple VOR triangulation.

[billvon 3,132]

This seems like a really silly argument.

I almost got caught busting a TFR area after the crash of the Avianca 707 near my house almost 15 years ago. No "maps that could be displayed on a certified navigational instrument." The only map I had was a sectional, and the only navigation gear I had on board was a single VOR receiver. And they didn't announce the TFR over ATIS (or on the tower frequency) until after I took off. Still 100% my responsibility to avoid it. They busted several other people for it.

During later flights I took an FAA approved pen and circled the area called out in the TFR on my FAA approved sectional. Worked just fine. (I know it was an FAA approved pen because my CFI signed me off for solos with it.)

[ViperPilot 0]

***(I know it was an FAA approved pen because my CFI signed me off for solos with it.)***

Ha! Classic bill.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

***(I know it was an FAA approved pen because my CFI signed me off for solos with it.)***

Ha! Classic bill.

Is it legal to substitute VOR triangulation and Bill's FAA approved pen for a failed DME on a VOR/DME arc approach? Your monkey could do it, you claim, but is an instrument rated ATP expected to be able to do it?

Are there any instrument procedures in the USA that involve flying around an arc of a circle using VOR triangulation and an FAA approved pen? Why do you think that is, if monkeys can do it?

BTW you still have not told us the likely position error (in nm) all around a 30 mile circle (drawn with an FAA approved pen) from VOR triangulation using VORs accurate to plus/minus 4 degrees on each VOR. It will only take you 6 - 9 seconds, right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Just to be clear, I have not stated that it can't be done.

"There is no practical method of complying with other than not flying at all if you don't want to risk getting shot down by an F16?"

The impression I got (at first) was you thought it was an impossible situation to comply with.

I'm sympathetic that things could be made easier and that bureaucracies don't alway look into the practical application of law. But it seems that avoiding restricted airspace is 100% the responsibility of the pilot and if he can't handle it, then he should completely avoid the area. And if the requirement is overly restrictive, then he should communicate that to the individuals that manage it - those people are likely humans (not aliens) that want to do a good job - not just a faceless bureaucracy. I hope you sent a polite note or call into the local authorities for this area that bothers you - with maybe some tactful and constructive suggestions/ideas for doing it better.

It's easy to bitch, but we have smart guys to around to help others do things better, that doesn't equal just going around telling others how they do things wrong without any positive advice. (That's what engineers are for.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ViperPilot 0]

So how has this deterioriated into you pulling things like DME arc approaches and ATP ratings out of your ass? We're not talking about IMC flying, we're talking about avoiding a freakin TFR.

Quote

BTW you still have not told us the likely position error (in nm)

Both VORs used for triangluation off by 4 deg (in opposite directions to give worst case scenario) puts you b/w 5 and 6 mi off.

So, in a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that this happens (both off 4 deg in opposite directions), you'll only be 5-6 nm off. Gee, give the TFR a 6 mi buffer if you really want to fly close and don't have access to a GPS, thus being forced to use VOR trinagulation.

P.S. It took me 6-9 sec to figure all of that out and just to check, the monkey in my closet concurs.