Hm I'm planning the new season and XC from Dickies looks like, whoow we will be close to the big birds.
In the picture below (taken on a flight to Dulles) the plane turns at 7500feet just in the SW line of my predicted XC. Afterwards his altitude goes dramaticlly down to Dulles.
I guess other planes will be even lower in that area.
Maybe Fred can helps us out here to now a safe altitude for us. Well safe does not exist probably
I apologize if the following is redundant information: powered
aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules are supposed to fly at odd-
numbered thousands of feet MSL plus 500 (3500, 5500, etc.) when
flying WEST and even-numbered thousands of feet plus 500 (4500, 6500,
etc.) when flying EAST. However, aircraft flying under Instrument
Flight Rules (so might look out the window even less) fly at even
thousands westbound and odd thousands eastbound (no added 500). So,
to the extent you could control your altitude, it might be better not
to hang out at thousand or 500 foot increments, but try to be
somewhere in between. Just a thought... - Hugh
Wow -- thanks Hugh! This is much more useful and easier to remember information than those darn Class A, B, C, D, E & G Controlled Airspace circles we're forced to study in order to pass the P-2, P-3 and P-4 exams!
Charlie
interesting
I checked the altitude graph in detail.
The problem well before Dickies and till Dulles they are in approach and are constantly lowering altitude. This means there is no such safe altitude it looks like.
Let's get Fred on the Forum he is airline pilot, PG pilot and sailplane pilot in VA.
Fred where are you?
mcelrah wrote:I apologize if the following is redundant information: powered
aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules are supposed to fly at odd-
numbered thousands of feet MSL plus 500 (3500, 5500, etc.) when
flying WEST and even-numbered thousands of feet plus 500 (4500, 6500,
etc.) when flying EAST. However, aircraft flying under Instrument
Flight Rules (so might look out the window even less) fly at even
thousands westbound and odd thousands eastbound (no added 500). So,
to the extent you could control your altitude, it might be better not
to hang out at thousand or 500 foot increments, but try to be
somewhere in between. Just a thought... - Hugh
Almost makes you want to go out and buy a portable transponder!
The heavy transports may be using the VOR's location as a reference
point just to standardize the approach, but they probably are not
using the VOR signal for navigation - GPS rules. On the other hand,
some small planes are still actually using the VOR and they certainly
aren't landing at Dulles (may still be descending though). - Hugh
That would show up on Dulles' radar and *maybe* on transports'
collision avoidance systems? With a mode C (altitude encoding)
transponder and an aviation band radio, could you then be legal in
the class B? Answer: NO! Not as a part 103 ultralight. So could a
licensed pilot so equipped do it? Maybe. If he had an N number.
Dunno - I hate the lawyering... This is more relevant for the new
Light Sport Aircraft coming out. If you have a private pilot ticket
and you hang a transponder and a radio on an LSA, can't you fly in
controlled airspace? - Hugh
mcelrah wrote:That would show up on Dulles' radar and *maybe* on transports'
collision avoidance systems? With a mode C (altitude encoding)
transponder and an aviation band radio, could you then be legal in
the class B? Answer: NO! Not as a part 103 ultralight. So could a
licensed pilot so equipped do it? Maybe. If he had an N number.
Dunno - I hate the lawyering... This is more relevant for the new
Light Sport Aircraft coming out. If you have a private pilot ticket
and you hang a transponder and a radio on an LSA, can't you fly in
controlled airspace? - Hugh
Letsee, maybe you could apply for an N number and get yer PG classified as an experimental aircraft, then fly with a mode C 'sponder and and call Dulles on the radio to request clearance? "This is Paraglider N-Xray-Alpha-Tango-four-two-two .... "
I recall back in the 80's Rob McKenzie had an N number on his hang glider. Maybe it could be done ...
I think Dickies has some nice xc potential, but the airline traffic is a big problem.? Last year, I hooked a number of strong thermals that would have taken me to base under a cloud street going 20-30 miles north along the ridge.? However, every three to five minutes a heavy would literally pass by 500 feet below base and fly under?the cloud street to the north.??Needless to say, I never took a thermal to base.??The?one time I went xc from Dickies, I stayed?out in the valley and flew cross wind to the north.? I?did not use the Blue Ridge as a thermal trigger to avoid air traffic problems.? I didn't get?real far, maybe 17 miles or so, but?it was still fun and I never saw any other aircraft.
?
I also know one pilot that?went?ESE (winds were?crossing from the west), crossing?Shenandoah Park a few miles south of?Dickies and had a nice flight to the east.? That direction would be ok too because you miss most of Dulles airspace.? But I would still be careful while over SNP.
?
Tom? McGowan
Hm I'm planning the new season and XC from Dickies looks like, whoow we will be close to the big birds.
In the picture below (taken on a flight to Dulles) the plane turns at 7500feet just in the SW line of my predicted XC. Afterwards his altitude goes dramaticlly down to Dulles.
I guess other planes will be even lower in that area.
Maybe Fred can helps us out here to now a safe altitude for us. Well safe does not exist probably
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
