Message-ID: <3614026E.249A@explornet.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:30:06 -0400
From: Victoria Deaton <vdeaton@explornet.org>
Reply-To: vdeaton@explornet.org
Organization: ExplorNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Clearance Delivery
References: <6uvrnl$apo4$1@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com> <01bded49$0f6c6740$c9a456d1@default> <3613d2dd.0@feed1.realtime.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.134.14.12
X-Trace: 1 Oct 1998 18:35:39 GMT, 208.134.14.12
Lines: 44
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.30.182.5!news.tico.com!208.134.14.12
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:34098

Thanks to Jim Sokoloff for articulating what I failed to say in terms of
my logic.

I did *RTFQ*. Twice. It sounded like he was using some really bad
headsets or just didn't 'copy' everything.

And so I second-guessed him on the runway heading question, based on the
same logic Jim used, and also the the fly/maintain wording that Herb
mentions that we're all used to. 

Yes, I'm aware that the runway heading isn't necessarily the MH, but it
seemed to be overkill at the moment when basically the answer was "keep
flying sorta straight ahead, dude".  I couldn't remember the  potential
deviance (5?10?15? Drew a blank) though it was on the oral *and* I was
late for work so I didn't take the time to quote Kershner or the FAR's
in detail--my usual backup when my fuzzy little brain farts.. :-) Ron
and James did the honors.

(Sorry. I just got a bit defensive over the "RTFQ". Otherwise I woulda
let this drop)

Disclaimer: I figure one of these days I'll screw up and post something
so totally gawdawful stoopid and wrong that I'll be shamed and
self-exiled into a cave with no net access to r.a.s., but IMHO this
didn't quite qualify. <g> (BTW, what ever happened to
he-who-shall-remain-nameless?)

victoria



James M. Knox wrote:
> 
> In article <01bded49$0f6c6740$c9a456d1@default>, "Victoria Deaton" <bohican@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Maintain runway heading is just that...if you're taking off on 32, then you
> >maintain a heading of 320. In your case, 320 at or below 2000 ft.
> 
> Like Victoria said, maintain the runway **heading** -- no correction for wind
> drift.  I've seen tower controllers who weren't even very clear on this.
> 
> [Actually, the runway "heading" is the magetic alignment of the runway.  Not
> the runway numbers times 10.  But VFR pilots don't usually have this info
> easily available, and it will never be off more than about 15 degrees.  {Yes,
> 15, not 5!}]
