Sonar5

Sounds Good,Thanks Matt.Regards,Joe

Ok folks, I started another topic where I have compiled your ideas from this thread.This mainly pertains to rule recommendations. if you have any more, add them to that thread, and in about a week or so, I will forward them to Matt.Thread is here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...esg_id=29&page=Regards,Joe

Ideas on Rules For the Race Thread:These are Compiled from the pinned thread. They are meant as to further define what types of aircraft should be allowed or excluded and other ideas as to the running of the race.The final arbiter of rules is Matt Smith. It is he and he alone that decides what flies and what don't. But since suggestions were made, We can list them here, refine them, and I will forward them to Matt.Please comment on these by listing the number IE #3, and then refining any clarifications, etc..Once this has been up for a while, say a week or so, I will forward them to Matt on behalf of Avsim. Please keep the spirit of the race in mind as you comment, as our goal should be a fair race for all.Regards,Joe****************Ideas****************From StoneCold1) I personally think Matt should have 10 specific cities each forum must stop in, actually doing a baton hand off there, not just a touch-and-go. One city on each of North America, South America, Central America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia, and clues for the other 3 where each team must solve the clues/riddles/whatever to determine those 3 specific airports. For the known cities, if there's more than 1 airport in the city, any of the airports will do; for the mystery cities, the clues would point to a specific airport at the specific city. Some of these cities might take the flight route well away from the "ideal straight" route, like forcing a stop at a city in South Africa, or an airstrip in northern Canada. The extra distance would make the race take longer, offer more legs to allow more pilots to participate, and make flight planning even more important. The required cities/airports can be done in any order, but all must be done.2) Invite other forums to participate, making it a race between 3 or more teams.3) Alternately, if the race is limited to just avsim and flightsim, allow each forum to form multiple teams. So, Avsim might form 2 teams, "Avsim A" and "Avsim B", which are completely separate teams in direct competition with each other in addition to the team(s) from flightsim. Of course, this strays away from the "Avsim vs. Flightsim" concept, becoming "Avsim vs Avsim vs Flightsim", or "Avsim vs Avsim vs Avsim vs Flightsim vs Flightsim" or whatever, depending on how many teams are formed. Avsim A members are members of that team only, and cannot participate in Avsim B's race as well because they're unique teams. This would also allow more pilots to participate, but might complicate things further, and lead some to think it unfair that Avsim might have 2 teams vs 1 on flightsim. Thus, this may not be desirable, but I give the idea now anyway...4) Questionable aircraft such as the Thunderscreetch that caused controversy in last year's race need to be banned from the beginning.5) A minimum time between legs? For example, pilot A lands, hands off to pilot B over the course of a 5-minute waiting period. Or, at least the next pilot cannot takeoff (and post the "I have baton!") until the previous pilot has posted their "baton available!" AND their proof screenshot(s). Once the screenshot is posted, then the next pilot can post "I have the baton" and takeoff. (no more having your basic messages ready to just hit submit then post screenshot afterwards to save time..) Tip: just make sure your image editor works properly before you fly your leg, so you don't delay your team while you fix your image editor.From SoarPics6) And a pre-race ruling about the LearFan 2100 would be good as well.From Jwenting7) I'd advocate limiting the event to normally aspirated engines only (so no turboprops or supersonic propellers on jet engines at all).8) And limit the use of known grossly incorrect FDEs.Last year I think it was someone also found an ATR 42 which had such grossly unrealistic flight dynamics that it almost went supersonic. He decided not to use it because it was clearly incorrect but according to the then-standing rules it would have been legal as it was openly available and not modified by him.9) Maybe even further restrict it to a fixed set of aircraft (participants could be asked to submit their chosen aircraft for approval before the race and get permission to use those, others coming in later can then use only one of the aircraft listed as permitted).From StoneCold RE #910) Only if the majority of the permitted aircraft are freeware... (Maybe limit it to freeware aircraft so everyone can choose from the entire list....)From Jwenting11) I was thinking of people being able to register the aircraft of their choice by type (say DC-3, Cheyenne 400, Avanti) rather than specific addon names.12) That would enable you to choose any implementation of that type (as long as it has reasonable flight dynamics, so not like the supersonic ATR someone discovered last year) while still preventing the thunderscreech (or something like it) from making an entry as it would be shot down before ever taking flight.From dcc13) I'd vote for keeping the same airplane rules as before, but saying the airplane must have been in production -- that keeps it limited to real-world craft that actually flew, and should exclude super mods like reno racer P-51s or experimental craft.Jwenting14) Yes, stating explicitly that only production aircraft that have not been modified for increased performance (thus excluding race modifications like you mention) should be sufficient.****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Hi all,I am going to compile all of the suggestions here, and forward them to Matt as to proposed ideas on the race. And of course he is the final arbiter of all concerns.Once I compile them, I will list them here and give people a chance to comment before I forward them. That way we are all not blasting him with emails and such.Regards,Joe ****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Happy New Year,Hey a little bird sent me a link where you folks have been ramping up for months on this. ;-)And yes, I feel this may be a close race this year as well. We may only win by 6-7 Hours this time. :-) :-)I also like the idea of Production planes only with a stern definition of such. That way, if Matt needs to he can intervene with a ruling more quickly without having to rule on the fly. Perhaps examples of planes that cannot be used would help, but it would be better, IMHO to simply define what CAN be used.I'm going to itemize all the suggestions and forward them to Matt. Perhaps you can do that for the loser...errr.... the other side as well. ;-)And good luck to you folks as well. And Don't forget, Fly West To East for fast times at flightsim high. :-)As for "Sleeping Monster...." Muhahahahahha..... You Have No Idea....!!!!! Best Regards,Joe****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Hi Sven,I have already received Confirmation of the Sunday Following Valentine's day.12 Noon Eastern Time, Sunday February 20th, 2005.Location and Rules still TBD.Regards,Joe****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Hi Marty,Sorry I didn't get back to you right away, I had a pretty busy day yesterday.It may be useful to some, me I usually just watch the tanks and do the math on the fuel flow, as far as GPH, and use the internal flight planner.The Log for all flights would be useful, but we currently use a Screen Capture from the map function within MSFS showing the whole route, with magenta lines as proof the flight was flown.Routes in advance work good except in this Race, we can usually only plan the next few as something always wrenches the original plan, and the on-the-fly planning takes over. This is due to computer crashes, etc.My advice is this. Post the link here, and that will give our pilots the option of trying it out to see if it will help them.I've already grabbed the program, and promise to check it out and report back in this thread. I encourage others to do the same. Sounds like a neat little program.Regards,Joe****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum. It can be found at:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...=227&topic_id=1

Hi Matt, Good To see you Again. :-)I am also setting up some Multi-Player events over the next few weeks before the Race Starts for Avsim members.I started a Thread on that separately in the Avsim Multi-Player Forum here.Multi Player Event Thread:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...sg_id=114&page=First One, This Sunday 1 pm Pacific. Location TBD.Regards,Joe

Great Advice,From the other thread, I also like & use Powerstrip, which can be found here:Power Striphttp://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtmMore Info on PCI Latency Here:http://www.geocities.com/phileosophos/tech/pcilatency.htmlI have mine set at 32, and upped some others..Regards,Joe****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

The Rules just above this post are actually form the 2003 Race, I posted the wrong ones.Here are the Rules form the 2004 race. Sorry about that.2004 Rules:OFFICIAL RULESObjective:To be the first forum to successfully complete (and authenticate) a series of flights around the world. It

Here are the Rules from the 2004 race. They are subject to change by Matt however.From:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchTHE RULESObjective:To be the first forum to successfully complete (and authenticate) a series of flights around the world. It

Got it. Thanks.

Hey Mike,Happy New Year. :-)I posted a pre-race Thread #1 here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=232283&page=Of course the first link in it was for your synopsis of the Race. Great job, too. Can we count on you for this years synopsis as well. ;-)I'm looking forward ot this one again. I had a blast last year.Best Regards,Joe****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Hi Everyone,The time is drawing near where we the members of Avsim get to defend the Trophy as Champions of the (RTW) Round The World Race.From:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...misc&DLID=45449"The idea, inspired by Tornado Wilkes and refined and implemented by Matt Smith, is for each team to advance a baton around the world

You said:"Parts of Alaska were covered in 1964."Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?That's pretty sad, as that caused a lot of devastation up there.Info on 1964 Earthquake and Tsunami's in Alaskahttp://www.wcatwc.gov/64quake.htm****************Grab My FREEWARE Cessna 172 Voice recognition Profile here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

That's the part that got me too.If there was ever someone that deserves 6 months, it's this guy, IMHO. Maybe he was hoping his daughter would back him up, and she didn't. Good for her, as I teach my kids it is not good to lie about anything.You know I was thinking about something else. When I fly in the daytime, say late afternoon, one of the legs will always be right in the sun.We as pilots deal with this everyday by wearing a good pair of Sunglasses (Serengeti here), and looking away slightly from the direct light.Now I've never had a laser pointed at me, but I wonder why the Pilots can't wear protection as they do for the sun. If the Military has them, why not commercial aviation?I use a filter to view the Moon through the scope because the brightness can harm my eyes, so why not for Pilots?It is a huge sky, and lasers do make it a lot more easier to point out stars constellations, etc.It should be noted that one has to have intent to be convicted. If some plane flies through a beam on accident, I still say tough cookies if the person using the laser didn't have intent and was not aware of a plane nearby.Regards,Joe

Follow-up...Well, it looks like the guy from NJ is allegedly a Marooon. First he says his daughter pointed it at the Police helicopter. Then the Maroon goes back to FBI HQ, agrees to take a lie Detector Test, apparently fails it, and then allegedly admits it was he who pointed his 5mw laser at the police Helicopter.Well, if Martha can get 6 months for lying, this Maroon should get at least 6 months for lying if convicted.As this is the same guy they interrogated for hours until 5am, I can only say the Authorities did a good job, as this Maroon knew exactly what he was doing apparently, and I should not have been so harsh on them in my previous posts. For that I apologize.Just keep in mind there are thousands of these in the public and it was the person who used it wrongly, and not everyone goes out targeting aircraft.I can only hope as I have said before that this leads to education on both the Pilot side, as well as the public.It is still Legal to point these things at stars and such, just not aircraft.And if found guilty, I say lock this guy up with at least 6 months.Regards,JoeFrom:http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_...0p-229568c.html"NEWARK

Actually many of them are lasers and not LED's, IMHO.Read up a bit on them, and you will find that for a slow as $95.00 you can have a 5mw LASER that will go about 10,000 Feet.That's what I have which I use for Astronomy.Now, are there a bunch of cheap look alike LED Pointers. Yeppers, buyer beware as usual.And as for Pain in the butt, yep could be, but no more than flying into haze that you did not know was there, and I bet that haze lasts longer than a few seconds too. Last Time I flew into Haze it took more than afew seconds to do my 360, and fly back out of it. All on Instruments too. No Big deal. Same with Clouds.Regards,Joe

Ok Jeroen, now that this LASER story is debunked, let's work on these chicken farmer terrorists.If they teach those things to fly at around 2000 Feet AGL, the entire Airspace of the world is at risk. They Must be STOPPED.I will do my part to eat more chickens though.I Encourage all to eat as much chicken as possible, as we might be saving our Aircraft from a terrible Chicken scourge. :-) :-)Now where's my BBQ sauce....?Regards,Joe

Hey Clay,How about the FBI Instead of the FAA, would they be a credible source, or is this all a Terrorist cover Up Story.Here You Go:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...aimedataircraft"A string of incidents around the country involving laser beams aimed at aircraft aren't linked to terrorism and are more likely the work of mischief makers, the FBI said Sunday.The FBI attributed eight incidents in the past 10 days to pranks or accidental acts that tagged aircraft in Ohio, Texas, Oregon and New Jersey. Pilots reported that powerful laser beams apparently had been aimed at them during takeoffs and landings."Looks like I was right all along. :-)And from here:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/03/fbi_laser_terror/"Numerous people have been questioned by the FBI about this laser beam activity, but no one has been charged with a crime."Maybe because THEY COMMITTED NO CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.I advise folks here that the next time you see a Laser pointing in the sky, don't assume it's some whacky terrorist, as it is probably just an astronomer, or some kid or adult screwing around with a <5mw Laser.Again, I feel what needs to be stressed is the Education of the Rules and Regs for the Public, and the Pilots, as all we will have is the Ignorant Public and Ignorant Pilots reporting every time they even see a laser going up in the sky. Another debunked Theory....And with regards to your faith in the FAA, what would be their motive for doing a study, establishing these regulations and federal rules, and not going for an all-out ban on ALL Lasers.Do you believe the FAA is in collusion with the hand held laser industry? Pretty Silly, huh?Maybe if the FAA held the opposite position of what I listed, you may have a point, but there is no motive for the FAA unless someone assumes they were in collusion to protect the laser industry. Two totally different industries, when you exclude the Military Applications.And here is another DUMB Pilot not aware of the rules, now they are reporting even if they just see one, not even if it is not Pointed at them.Regards,Joe

"Don't worry about me shining anything at aircraft. Laser pointers are prohibited here as weapons (yeah, call it overreaction or not) under firearms regulations and even if not I do know better."Well, this is not EEurope here, and we have regulations in place already for this.Maybe if the pilots and the FAA do a better job educating the pilots about the Zones, and the regs already in place.And maybe if the Moronic press reported these rules so that people were aware of their existence and the consequences, maybe these incidents would go down.But that would not get them their ratings, now would it.Nope, better to scare the steeple that will believe anything thrown out in front of them without ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever. Yeah, much easier.You see there are no ratings gains for diluting a story like this in the press, only gains for keeping it going, and keeping the SPIN alive.I have provided evidence to the contrary, so I am satisfied as to the risks here, and I am of the opinion that it is minimal, and bird strikes create more of a hazard than these things do.Better start looking for Terrorists breeding Crows near airports. Breaking News on this story at 11. ;-)Regards,Joe

Morning Clay,I have no concerns with you offering an opinion, however, mine is backed with evidence and therefore is a bit more credible.Do I think Commercial Grade >5 Lasers should be regulated? Sure why not. But some in the news act as if this is something that recently started happening.It's been going on for YEARS, and well before 9/11. Read the studies, like I did.Hundreds and Hundreds of reports.But Now, the press and a bunch of Barney Fifes want to retain the entire sky for their aircraft, as if the sky is only of benefit to them.That is just wrong, IMHO.This is just a stupid moronic attempt to gain ratings by the press, and had it not been reported, you would not have all these copycats doing it with their <5 lasers as is happening now.I mean, please... They interrogate some poor guy until 5 am for shining a legal laser in the sky in his backyard. Then some IDIOT Pilot says he saw a Laser 11 miles away form the airport. 11 Miles Clay. Talk about dumb. Maybe these pilots should on their next checkride should be tested on the regs in place now, to keep themselves from making STUPID Comments like that one did.And of course, the IGNORANT Population continues to believe what people like YOU and the press keep saying on this. That is why I rebutted you with FACTS and EVIDENCE.Talk about OVERKILL, overreaching authority, Ignorance, and just plain stupidity by these authorities.As for Pilots being concerned, well, I guess the study should be mailed to each of them so they can ease their concerns, as well as a copy of the regs.My guess is these pilots don't have any clue either, and are listening to the stupid press, and buying Rumors as facts like some do here.As for the FAA, they did take action, they did do studies, they did receive input from Pilots, and they did enact the Laser Zones.Again, not one single accident, not one due to a laser.Regards,Joe

A Correction:The Sentence above:"And I also say an Aircraft at 800 Feet at night going 300 Knots is very easy to track. You just listen for the sound and look for the lights on a clear night. Pretty simple stuff, IMHO. I see them quite often. The higher they are the easier to track."Should read 8000 Feet AGL.

Hmmmmmm,Oh Please, I've used guns with lasers too, as have many here I bet, no big deal, and very common.Well, even with your vast experience, you can still be wrong, and I say IMHO, it is just mischief with the perpetrators not realizing the seriousness or the consequences of their actions.And I also think all these local Barney Fifes have no clue as to the Federal regulations that govern the airpsace or the power of the laser, and will just assume everyone is a terrorist with any laser regardless of the power. Oh wait, looks like in one case I was right:http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/articles/news2-laser.htm"On Wednesday night, a pilot preparing to land the jet at Teterboro reported seeing three green laser beams about 11 miles from the airport."11 Miles, who cares, It's out of the zone anyway, not that anyone ever reports that there is a zone.Now we'll have all these whiners calling police every time some kid or adult shines a LEGAL LASER in the sky. That is almost as STUPID as the flight sim warnings after 9/11. Just DUMB Press to drum up ratings, IMHO.Even the FAA says there have been NO ACCIDENTS even though there have been HUNDREDS of reported lasers. And the studies confirm the minimal annoyance this has been. And if you had all this vast experience you speak of, you also might know there are regulations on this, as well as this:1. Laser Free Zone (LFZ). Airspace in the immediate proximity of the airport, up to and including 2,000 feet AGL, extending 2 NM in all directions measured from the runway centerline. Additionally, the LFZ includes a 3 NM extension, 2,500 feet each side of the extended runway centerline, up to 2,000' AGL of each useable runway surface. The level of laser light is restricted to a level that should not cause any visual disruption.2. Critical Flight Zone (CFZ). Airspace within a 10 NM radius of the airport reference point, up to and including 10,000 feet AGL, where a level of laser light is restricted to avoid flashblindness or afterimage effects.3. Sensitive Flight Zone (SFZ).- Airspace outside the critical flight zones that authorities (e.g., FAA, local departments of aviation, military) have identified that must be protected from the potential effects of laser emissions.4. Normal Flight Zones (NFZ).- Airspace not defined by the Laser Free, Critical, or Sensitive Flight Zones.MULTIPLE RUNWAY LASER FREE ZONEhttp://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/graphic/F280103.gifAIRSPACE FLIGHT ZONEShttp://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/graphic/F280104.gifGraph Formhttp://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIR/graphic/F280105.gifThis Data is Very Recent, and is from August of 2003.The FAA says:"CONCLUSION. The FSEL of 5 mW/cm2 was validated for pilots illuminated by laser light while conducting terminal operations in the CFZ. Familiarization with the aircraft flown and instrument training appeared to improve the pilot