[jhb] Re: VFR planning
- From: Phil Reynolds <phil.reynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 09:55:29 +0000
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for the information. The CIX website is something I've not really
explored yet. I'll take a look at the link you've provided later.
Cheers
Phil
On January 1, 2015 8:54:02 PM GMT, Peter Dodds <pwdbt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In short Yes. As well as the weather influence, Dot to dot to go round
>
>airspace works. Pick features from the map which you will easily
>recognise from the air - lakes, railway junctions, distinctive towns -
>Canterbury=cathedral, Worcester=River Severn and racecourse and
>cathedral Coventry=Draycott Water, Tatenhill=Blithfield Reservoir etc.
>etc. In default scenery, though, you are really forced to go airfield
>to
>airfield, VOR or NDB. Always read from ground to map. It is much
>easier to find something on the map that you have spotted on the
>ground,
>than to search for a feature from the air that you have found on the
>map
>such as a lake.
>Exercises 18a and 18d on the CIX site might be of some help.
>http://www.cixvfrclub.org.uk/training/TrainingManual/training_manual.php
>
>Peter
>
>> Phil Reynolds <mailto:phil.reynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 31 December 2014 14:28
>> Hi Bones,
>>
>> I've been (re)reading your excellent map reading pages on your
>website
>> and have a question.
>>
>> All the examples given plot a straight course from A to B. If however
>
>> I have a route that misses certain airspace (for whatever reason) how
>
>> would the route be plotted in the real world?
>>
>> My initial thoughts would be to plot the route as straight lines
>> between multiple map features (VRPs, airfields), almost like a
>> join-the-dots exercise? Would this be correct?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Other related posts:
