DUATS

[Plthijnx]

anyone use it? how about the golden eagle version? i've used it for years and love it!

[Frank N. O.]

Uhm, what is it? And the only Golden Eagle I know is a former group of vintage plane enthusiasts making high-quality authentic MSFS add-ons.

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

It's a weather briefing system.  I forget what it stands for, but it's an automated system accessed on the internet.  You tell it where you'll be flying, and it gives you all the needed information.

I only use it for AOPA's Real Time Flight Planner.  I don't really like it, because it gives you security package Romeo every time you ask for a briefing.  I'd much rather talk to a real person, even though most of the Flight Service Stations are going away.  I had a chance to talk to the station supervisor for Princeton at a safety meeting.  He diffused a lot of my concerns about privatising and consolidating Flight Service.

Incidentally, if you're calling to file and get a weather briefing, get the briefing first.  They only have like 5 seconds to start a briefing after you ask for it.  And, how can you file if you don't know how long it'll take?  Can't know that until you get the winds.   

[fireflyr]

Direct User Access Terminal System----In most instances it's fine but if you ever have a weather related accident the first thing the NTSB will look at is if you called and got a standard briefing.   Doesn't make sense, they want you to use DUATS or other automated services but if you screw the pooch, they don't give you much credit for investigating the weather on your own!
BY-the-way (humorous moment here) when I flew freight, we had a 'TELETYPE' weather machine in the pilot ready-room - it's a great big typing machine that churns out reams of weather reports that you have 'READ' so that you know what's going on.
OH, and above the machine at Cal Air, there was a sign "Don't bother reading the weather---you're going anyway!"  which was true--better to take off in ignorance and be scared later!

[Frank N. O.]

LOL that's funny right there, but isn't it kind-of a bad idea not to check the weather before flying?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

LOL that's funny right there, but isn't it kind-of a bad idea not to check the weather before flying?

Frank

YES it is.  Always check the weather, even if you know it's clear and a million.  You never know when a TFR will be in your flight path.

[C310RCaptian]

"Don't bother reading the weather---you're going anyway!"  which was true--better to take off in ignorance and be scared later!

I wish I could find that sign. Id hang it above the hangar door. Sometimes I really don’t want to know what I am flying into.

As for DUATS and DUAT. They are both approved and count for weather briefings. I prefer DUATS though (just use to it more). One thing I did  during my flight training is plug in the first aircraft I soloed N number, because I didn’t know what plane I was getting until I got to the airport. I found out when talking to the guys of DUAT at Oshkosh that if something were to happen to the aircraft, even if I am not on it, the FAA can come and question me because I got a WX briefing for that airplane. WX briefings are one of the first things the FAA looks for and they do request the data log that you got a briefing from DUATS and DUAT. It takes them a day or two to pull the log they don’t like to mess with it much. They suggested use your initials for the N number.  Or when you call and get a briefing tell them you don’t know the aircrafts N number yet and give them your name instead. It’s a lot easier to explain your initials in the event something happened than an actual n number.

For me any way to avoid the FAA is good for me.

[fireflyr]

"Hi, I'm the FAA and I'm here to help"   is usually followed by a "GULP" and a flurry of mental question (Let's see- AROW-did I get a standard brief-etc. etc.")
Yes indeedy, ALWAYS check the weather,but that's inaddition to the time honored tradition of actually going out and flying in it---there have been many times when dreadful things promised by the weather guessers fail to materiaize because being a weather man is one of the few jobs in the world where you can be wrong almost all the time and still draw a paycheck.   

BUT (and it's a big-big BUT) you have to know your own skills and limitations!

Cal Air had an on time delivery record for UPS that was near perfect because we often did "take a look" in spite of forcast conditions.

Just remember the "BUT" I mentioned in the above paragraph.
Just remember the "BUT" I mentioned in the above paragraph.   (repeated because of importance)

[Frank N. O.]

"Hi, I'm the FAA and I'm here to help"   is usually followed by a "GULP" and a flurry of mental question (Let's see- AROW-did I get a standard brief-etc. etc.")
Yes indeedy, ALWAYS check the weather,but that's inaddition to the time honored tradition of actually going out and flying in it---there have been many times when dreadful things promised by the weather guessers fail to materiaize because being a weather man is one of the few jobs in the world where you can be wrong almost all the time and still draw a paycheck.   

BUT (and it's a big-big BUT) you have to know your own skills and limitations!
Cal Air had an on time delivery record for UPS that was near perfect because we often did "take a look" in spite of forcast conditions.

Just remember the "BUT" I mentioned in the above paragraph.
Just remember the "BUT" I mentioned in the above paragraph.   (repeated because of importance)

Words to live by, I know I do! And luckily I dertive no pleasure from high adrenalin levels so I'm not one that will be found hot-dogging or flying/driving wildly but of course weather conditions can still be hard even if you're flying normally, here I think it depends on both the pilot, the plane and what the pilot knows of the plane and that the plane is fully in order.

Did you read about the Airbus that lost the tail and litterally fell out of the sky? Mac from Flyingmag wrote that the report said it was wrong that any operations of the controls in manouvrering speed wasn't safe anyway since the rudder broke off from hard rudder use from side to side but that the normal rule is that the wing will stall before reaching the limit no matter how hard you manouvre the controls while not exceeding manouvrering speed, what I think was designed Vsa. Something to think about, but I would never be comfortable with wild jerks in the controls except it was to regain control or keep the plane stable, and there was mention of a 747 ahead of the Airbus.

Frank

[madpilot44]

really? that mus be one of the things you deffinetly don't want to hear in an airplane (the sound of the tail falling off). must have something to do with the wake turbulence of the 747. I heard about a couple of planes literally dropped out of the sky because they encountered wake turbulence... and at cruising altitude they were probably above Vsa...

[Frank N. O.]

That's what they thought, but they found out that violent rudder-movement right before the crash was a factor as well, if not the reason I can't remember, despite the fact it was below the yellow arc (can't remember the proper term).

I'll try to find the online article and post it in this post.

Edit: Here you go, two of them:
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=527
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=545

All this tells me is to keep to my principle of over-engineering (make things better/stronger than calculations show they need to be, just to be on the safe side).

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

Those are fascinating articles.  Thanks for posting them.

I was always told that you can't break the plane below Va.  I guess I'll have to go over this with my student now.     It's also another reason not to fly on an Airbus.