jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/11/84)
> You must not live in the West. One doesn't fly a straight line > between two points out here. If you try, you will a) pile into a > mountain, b) bust an Airport Traffic Area, c) bust a TCA, or > d) bust a restricted area. And that's just during the climb-out! > > AOPA keeps sending me literature on Flight Charts. One of these > days they'll figure out that I've no use for charts where the > "airways" are computer-calculated as straight lines between > VOR's, and not based on the true airway alignment. In addition, > VOR's out here tend to be affected by the mountainous terrain, > so the radial as computed by Flight Charts is often as much as > 3 degrees off the airway as flight-tested by the FAA. It's worse than that! AOPA has sent me advertisements for charts on which the altitude of the terrain is color coded. That's fine, except that everything above 5000 ft is the same color. It must be a misprint. I have to go about 100 miles to get below 5000 ft. They must really mean 5000 meters or maybe 15000 feet - nope: they really color code everything above 5000 ft the same.
rns@aicchi.UUCP (Schreiner) (07/04/85)
I recently sent away for a set of *FLIGHTCHARTS*. After inspecting them I found them to be some what disappointing and I am not comfortable using them for VFR navigation especially into new areas. I would like to hear from any one that does use (and like) them. Gripes 1) The scale is *NOT* the same for each chart, they vary from 1"=10nm to 1:100,000 more head work for the user. 2) Most of the information provided for navigation is VOR stuff, land marks and other terrain features do not get much attention. 3) Unless you are using a victor airway, you can not make an accurate course reading off of the VOR compass roses.