Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:56:02 +0200, Thomas wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Samstag 23 April 2005 19:58 schrieb Arnt Karlsen: > > > Nevertheless we have way too much restrictions here in Germany, > > > with new ones developed at an increasing rate after 9/11 (I'm > > > currently filling a "Request for a security check" of my very own > > > person :-( ) > > > > ..huh??? This is so you can walk to 'n from your plane and > > preflight etc it at your local and other airports? > > No, they just wanna make sure, that I'm not intending a spot landing > in the next high rise (everybody would tell, wouldn't he?). ..of cooouuurse he would. ;oD > It's just in a line with all the other "big brother" laws that came up > lately. The only difference here in Germany is that I have to request > that security check myself. > > Hopefully one day they'll spot the error in the GA pilot = terrorist > assumption... :-( ..how about Mathias Rust? ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:57:56 +0200, Thomas wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Samstag 23 April 2005 19:26 schrieb Arnt Karlsen: > >... > > ..how about re-doing your solo with --jgp-factory running, and make > > a movie? ;o) > > Well I could tape my digicam to the panel. Though I think a 30 sec > starting roll isn't that amazing... ;-) ..I was thinking of a movie made from FG itself, not using a video camera. FG can do that if Simgear is compiled with --jgp-factory, just wget the screen shots off FG's jpg-factory server onto another box, and then build the movie from the screen shot. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Am Samstag 23 April 2005 19:58 schrieb Arnt Karlsen: > > Nevertheless we have way too much restrictions here in Germany, with > > new ones developed at an increasing rate after 9/11 (I'm currently > > filling a "Request for a security check" of my very own person :-( ) > > ..huh??? This is so you can walk to 'n from your plane and preflight > etc it at your local and other airports? No, they just wanna make sure, that I'm not intending a spot landing in the next high rise (everybody would tell, wouldn't he?). It's just in a line with all the other "big brother" laws that came up lately. The only difference here in Germany is that I have to request that security check myself. Hopefully one day they'll spot the error in the GA pilot = terrorist assumption... :-( Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Am Samstag 23 April 2005 19:26 schrieb Arnt Karlsen: >... > ..how about re-doing your solo with --jgp-factory running, and make a > movie? ;o) Well I could tape my digicam to the panel. Though I think a 30 sec starting roll isn't that amazing... ;-) Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Thomas F?rster wrote: > Am Freitag 22 April 2005 18:33 schrieb Martin Spott: >> To be honest, I believe experienced people actually _do_ fly IFR if >> they have an aircraft that is equipped accordingly - even without >> having the proper license :-) > > No they do not, at least not for long time. O.k., let's call it continuous VFR in IMC ;-) > The point is, as proper IFR traffic you can expect separation from > ATC. Don't expect that as VFR in IMC. O.k., I know. On the other hand in real life the airspace below 10.000 ft is abolutely not very crowded when you are at risk of easily getting into IMC and the controller takes very much care of those out there in the wild :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:09:34 +0200, Thomas wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Freitag 22 April 2005 18:33 schrieb Martin Spott: > > Adam Dershowitz wrote: > > > Martin: Yes, in the US it is often done in single engine > > > airplanes. There is a lot of single engine IFR flying here, so > > > the rating is very useful on its own, rather than as a step to > > > other ratings. It really increases the utility of a airplane > > > greatly when a few clouds don't ground you. > > > > Oh yes, I understand the intention, as long as it's really focused > > on IFR flying - and I'd wish to do it as well. Unfortunately in > > Germany, probably in most of Europe, we have to face major and in > > large parts unnecessary hindrance which probably will make the IFR > > rating unreachable for me :-( > > As far as I know, you do not have to have a multiengine rating for the > IFR one in Germany. Both ratings are independent of each other. So > nothing hinders you to go straight through... :-) > > Nevertheless we have way too much restrictions here in Germany, with > new ones developed at an increasing rate after 9/11 (I'm currently > filling a "Request for a security check" of my very own person :-( ) ..huh??? This is so you can walk to 'n from your plane and preflight etc it at your local and other airports? > > To be honest, I believe experienced people actually _do_ fly IFR if > > they have an aircraft that is equipped accordingly - even without > > having the proper license :-) > > No they do not, at least not for long time. On our way back from > Friedrichshafen (Aero, Europes biggest GA trade show) we properly > descended from FL 95 to FL 55, even at the cost of 10 extra minutes, > because ATC didn't let us cross Nuremburgs D airspace. > > The point is, as proper IFR traffic you can expect separation from > ATC. Don't expect that as VFR in IMC. ..I and David Magginson discussed this here a year or so back, post-9/11 GA sounds quite as paranoid as Cold War time GA up north in Norway (Finnmark), it _was_ over the hill paranoid, "file flight plan 1hour in advance", "always, alway, always carry max fuel so you could get as far away from the Red Army as possible if they move in", and "if you can, carry your own radar and hide in terrain or clouds while running away to some useable or ditchable field", we expected our northern airports and ATC either taken, nuked, or "in the queue" in a couple of hours, in case of a Soviet invasion. ..the idiot war in Iraq is GWB's own doing, but I really have a problem forgiving those _assholes_ who lured the Russians into that idiot war in Chechenya. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:24:25 +0200, Thomas wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Freitag 22 April 2005 05:07 schrieb Dave Perry: > > I passed my instrument rating oral and practical (check ride) this > > afternoon. Five hours including the oral and ride. > > Congratulations Dave. > > > Thanks to the entire FlightGear team for a great simulator with real > > world applicability! > > I really second this. I started flight school after FlightGear gave me > the confidence that I could do it. The result is, that I had my first > solo today (after just a bit more than 7 hours, think I'll need lots > of alcohol to sleep tonight). ..how about re-doing your solo with --jgp-factory running, and make a movie? ;o) > Nothing spectacular, after three patterns my FI suddenly decided to > leave the plane and I did 2 more patterns, while he was collecting > flowers for the photo... :-) > > So also from Germany a big THANK YOU for the FlightGear team. .. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Adam Dershowitz wrote: > Martin: Yes, in the US it is often done in single engine airplanes. There > is a lot of single engine IFR flying here, so the rating is very useful on > its own, rather than as a step to other ratings. It really increases the > utility of a airplane greatly when a few clouds don't ground you. Oh yes, I understand the intention, as long as it's really focused on IFR flying - and I'd wish to do it as well. Unfortunately in Germany, probably in most of Europe, we have to face major and in large parts unnecessary hindrance which probably will make the IFR rating unreachable for me :-( To be honest, I believe experienced people actually _do_ fly IFR if they have an aircraft that is equipped accordingly - even without having the proper license :-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Am Freitag 22 April 2005 05:07 schrieb Dave Perry: > I passed my instrument rating oral and practical (check ride) this > afternoon. Five hours including the oral and ride. Congratulations Dave. > Thanks to the entire FlightGear team for a great simulator with real > world applicability! I really second this. I started flight school after FlightGear gave me the confidence that I could do it. The result is, that I had my first solo today (after just a bit more than 7 hours, think I'll need lots of alcohol to sleep tonight). Nothing spectacular, after three patterns my FI suddenly decided to leave the plane and I did 2 more patterns, while he was collecting flowers for the photo... :-) So also from Germany a big THANK YOU for the FlightGear team. Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Dave, Congrats! The instrument rating is a particularly difficult rating, but is also a very useful rating to have. Martin: Yes, in the US it is often done in single engine airplanes. There is a lot of single engine IFR flying here, so the rating is very useful on its own, rather than as a step to other ratings. It really increases the utility of a airplane greatly when a few clouds don't ground you. --Adam CFI,II, MEI,II -Original Message- From: Martin Spott To: flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Sent: 4/22/2005 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating! Dave Perry wrote: > I passed my instrument rating oral and practical (check ride) this > afternoon. Five hours including the oral and ride. Wow, this is great. Hmmm, I feel I'm getting envious ;-) > [...] The examiner said I did an outstanding job given the > conditions. I flelt like I was always flying back to where I wanted to > be with the many significant up and down drafts. the Piper Comanche > (PA24-250) performed well. Oh, you did your instrumental on a single engine aircraft ? In our country IFR (training and rating) is always done on multi-engine (to my knowledge) because it's meant as a step for the ATPL. This makes it almost unaffordable for individuals Well, I've still a long way to go before I face decisions like this. Yesterday I had my first solo traffic circuits on foreign airfields (two of them), still a nice experience :-) Congtatulations, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Am Freitag 22 April 2005 18:33 schrieb Martin Spott: > Adam Dershowitz wrote: > > Martin: Yes, in the US it is often done in single engine airplanes. > > There is a lot of single engine IFR flying here, so the rating is very > > useful on its own, rather than as a step to other ratings. It really > > increases the utility of a airplane greatly when a few clouds don't > > ground you. > > Oh yes, I understand the intention, as long as it's really focused on > IFR flying - and I'd wish to do it as well. Unfortunately in Germany, > probably in most of Europe, we have to face major and in large parts > unnecessary hindrance which probably will make the IFR rating > unreachable for me :-( As far as I know, you do not have to have a multiengine rating for the IFR one in Germany. Both ratings are independent of each other. So nothing hinders you to go straight through... :-) Nevertheless we have way too much restrictions here in Germany, with new ones developed at an increasing rate after 9/11 (I'm currently filling a "Request for a security check" of my very own person :-( ) > To be honest, I believe experienced people actually _do_ fly IFR if > they have an aircraft that is equipped accordingly - even without > having the proper license :-) No they do not, at least not for long time. On our way back from Friedrichshafen (Aero, Europes biggest GA trade show) we properly descended from FL 95 to FL 55, even at the cost of 10 extra minutes, because ATC didn't let us cross Nuremburgs D airspace. The point is, as proper IFR traffic you can expect separation from ATC. Don't expect that as VFR in IMC. Thomas ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Dave Perry wrote: > I passed my instrument rating oral and practical (check ride) this > afternoon. Five hours including the oral and ride. Wow, this is great. Hmmm, I feel I'm getting envious ;-) > [...] The examiner said I did an outstanding job given the > conditions. I flelt like I was always flying back to where I wanted to > be with the many significant up and down drafts. the Piper Comanche > (PA24-250) performed well. Oh, you did your instrumental on a single engine aircraft ? In our country IFR (training and rating) is always done on multi-engine (to my knowledge) because it's meant as a step for the ATPL. This makes it almost unaffordable for individuals Well, I've still a long way to go before I face decisions like this. Yesterday I had my first solo traffic circuits on foreign airfields (two of them), still a nice experience :-) Congtatulations, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another fgfs enabled rating!
Dave Perry wrote: I passed my instrument rating oral and practical (check ride) this afternoon. Five hours including the oral and ride. Boy was I glad I had done many approaches with the turbulence turned up as all the approaches were in moderate turbulence today with 20 gust to 35 kts and wind shear. The examiner said I did an outstanding job given the conditions. I flelt like I was always flying back to where I wanted to be with the many significant up and down drafts. the Piper Comanche (PA24-250) performed well. Because most of the time I had to stay below manuvering speed, and because of the wind shear and strong head winds on the approaches, all the power setting I normally use at different points in the approaches were different. My commercial rating is now worth something again. Thanks to the entire FlightGear team for a great simulator with real world applicability! Somehow I always enjoy reading these kinds of posts :-) Well done Dave. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
