Re: Cirrus crash midair

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.
>
> Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules:
> However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
> right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
>
> There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot. The
> NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see and
> avoid.

Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before, also
with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to fly
the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated safely
to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as well.

Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the aircraft,
but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve, low-time
pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige, comfort)
and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly intended
to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of inexperienced
and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.

For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating the
impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is all
about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any problem
and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the aircraft
certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).

There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured their
entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute. Either
those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.

Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots, and
Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

[Loek]

Mx, Dallas,

How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
(low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?
You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
blame / fault for this.

Loek

"Mxsmanic" > schreef in bericht
...
> Dallas writes:
>
>> Don't know about low time... but, yeah... his fault.
>>
>> Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules:
>> However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
>> right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
>>
>> There is no chance the accident is not the fault of the Cirrus pilot.
>> The
>> NTSB report will read: Failure to give right of way and failure to see
>> and
>> avoid.
>
> Yup. And the incredible thing is that the same thing has happened before,
> also
> with a Cirrus pilot clipping the tow line of a tow plane. In the previous
> case, the pilot pulled the parachute (I guess it didn't occur to him to
> fly
> the plane, although I'm not sure how much damage was done), and floated
> safely
> to earth. Obviously it was the Cirrus pilot's fault in that incident as
> well.
>
> Cirrus has a poor accident record. There's nothing wrong with the
> aircraft,
> but the company markets its aircraft very aggressively to very naïve,
> low-time
> pilots, emphasizing characteristics other than safety (e.g. prestige,
> comfort)
> and deliberately presenting certain things in a way that is clearly
> intended
> to inspire a false sense of security. This means that a lot of
> inexperienced
> and/or careless pilots buy Cirrus aircraft.
>
> For example, if you look at their marketing, they now talk about icing
> protection without mentioning the "entry into known" part, thus creating
> the
> impression that their icing protection allows you to fly through icing
> conditions with impunity, which is not at all what FIKI certification is
> all
> about. And they talk about their parachutes as if these can solve any
> problem
> and compensate for any lack of skill on the part of the pilot--without
> mentioning that they originally used the parachutes just to get the
> aircraft
> certified (rather than spin testing, if I recall correctly).
>
> There are some Cirrus pilots who are now dead who regularly reassured
> their
> entourage that flying the aircraft was safe because it had a parachute.
> Either
> those pilots were lying, or they had been seriously misled by someone.
>
> Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
> Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
> and
> Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
> deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

[Bug Dout]

"Loek" > writes:

> Mx, Dallas,
>
> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??

They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
the birds.
--
No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
Groucho Marx

[John Ward[_3_]]

Hi Bug Dout,

Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
country's accident investigation board......,

I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
fill us in a bit.

Regards,
John Ward

"Bug Dout" > wrote in message
...
> "Loek" > writes:
>
>> Mx, Dallas,
>>
>> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
>> accident??
>
> They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
> glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
> accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
> saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
> the birds.
> --
> No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
> Groucho Marx

[Ian D]

"Bug Dout" > wrote in message
...
> "Loek" > writes:
>
>> Mx, Dallas,
>>
>> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
>> accident??
>
> They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
> glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
> accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
> saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
> the birds.
> --
> No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
> Groucho Marx


It's clear that the Cirrus pilot was at fault.

Here are the UK aviation right of way rules:

Order of precedence

Flying machines shall give way to Airships, Glider and Balloons
Airships shall give way to gliders and balloons
Gliders shall give way to balloons
Mechanically driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft which are towing
other aircraft or objects

Here are the FAA right of way rules:


91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules,
vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to
see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another
aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may
not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other
air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft
to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different
categories-

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way
over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on,
or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way
and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to
pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an
aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting
to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule
to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69
FR 44880, July 27, 2004]

[Mxsmanic]

Loek writes:

> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic accident??
> (low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there, right?

It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required to
see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed to
see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many other
possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.

And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an eerie
coincidence.

> You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
> proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
> blame / fault for this.

Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

[Ian D]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
> Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
> and
> Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
> deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.

I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
an article on doctor involved accidents. At that time doctors,
as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
private GA aircraft. A lot of these doctors were experienced
pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.

The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
in some of the incidents.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Feb 7, 8:03*pm, "Ian D" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> .
>
>
>
> > Cirrus is the "fork-tailed doctor killer" of our era. The old V-tailed
> > Bonanzas tended to attract low-time, low-competence, high-income pilots,
> > and
> > Cirrus aircraft are doing the same thing. I don't know if Beechcraft ever
> > deliberately tried to target that market as Cirrus is doing, though.
>
> I remember that back in the mid 60s, Flying magazine had
> an article on doctor involved accidents. *At that time doctors,
> as a group, were involved in about a third of all fatals in
> private GA aircraft. *A lot of these doctors were experienced
> pilots, and the majority their accidents involved weather.
>
> The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
> one word... arrogance. *Being in the business of saving lives
> these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
> Oh, and I seem to remember that Bonanzas were involved
> in some of the incidents.

This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
the Bonanza accident period.
In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
had retention issues.
The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
applying a positive pitch input.
This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
> ...
>
> This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
> the Bonanza accident period.
> In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
> desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
> had retention issues.
> The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
> general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
> clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
> the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
> handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
> getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
> back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
> the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
> applying a positive pitch input.
> This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
> the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
> and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
> that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
> The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
> especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
> careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
> of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
> Dudley Henriques
>
I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
medium performance or greater.

Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Feb 7, 9:26*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
> > ...
>
> > This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
> > the Bonanza accident period.
> > In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
> > desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
> > had retention issues.
> > The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
> > general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
> > clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
> > the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
> > handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
> > getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
> > back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
> > the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
> > applying a positive pitch input.
> > This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
> > the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
> > and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
> > that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
> > The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
> > especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
> > careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
> > of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
> problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
> medium performance or greater.
>
> Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
> place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. *And
> besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!
>
> Peter

> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > news:903eb1bf-9d81-4282-8979-
> > ...

> > This is mostly true. I had many doctors and lawyers as students during
> > the Bonanza accident period.
> > In many there was indeed an arrogance, and coupled with their natural
> > desire to achieve a short time line on anything taught to them, many
> > had retention issues.
> > The real killer in the Bonanza craze wasn't arrogance per se but a
> > general lack of proper training in handing an airplane with a VERY
> > clean wing in instrument conditions. Many of the Bonanza crashes were
> > the result of pilots getting the aircraft into weather they couldn't
> > handle. The Bo, being extremely clean, was exceptionally capable of
> > getting nose low in turns. Many of the fatals involved pilots applying
> > back pressure when sensing a nose low condition instead of swallowing
> > the bank FIRST or SIMULTANEOUSLY, thus swallowing the bank before
> > applying a positive pitch input.
> > This VERY BASIC ERROR in a nose low condition just served to increase
> > the nose low condition. It didn't take the Bo long at all to reach Vne
> > and beyond. At that point many Bo's lost wings to the high g loads
> > that became available with the greatly increased airspeed.
> > The Bonanza was and is a fine airplane, but like any airplane,
> > especially with a slippery wing, on instruments you need to be VERY
> > careful when recovering from a nose low condition. Arrogance and lack
> > of basics in a Bonanza nose low on the clocks was a killer equation!
> > Dudley Henriques

> I wonder if the quickest, safest and least costly solution to a similar
> problem might be a couple of hours of glider instruction--and a glider of
> medium performance or greater.

> Admittedly, this is advocacy above my own experience; but it is the first
> place (other than a true-motion sim) that I would look for my own use. And
> besides, that glider intro flight was a lot of fun!

> Peter

I've always advocated glider instruction as a positive factor for any
pilot in a total training regimen. There is no doubt that glider
training can contribute to a better overall powered pilot flying a
powered aircraft. Along the same line of reasoning, aerobatics is of
immeasurable benefit in increasing basic skill sets to higher levels.
The bottom line in any training regimen involves not only the material
covered but how the time is spent by both the instructor and the
student as they interface together to form the teacher/student
equation.
If I had to pinpoint a single attribute to be the most important a
pilot could posses exiting a training program it would be the
acquirement of a sound sense of professional judgment coupled with
good basic flying skills.
In many of the Bonanza crashes, this factor unfortunately didn't seem
to be present.
DH

[Loek]

I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for our
Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!

Loek

"John Ward" > schreef in bericht
...
> Hi Bug Dout,
>
> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
> country's accident investigation board......,
>
> I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
> fill us in a bit.
>
> Regards,
> John Ward
>
> "Bug Dout" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Loek" > writes:
>>
>>> Mx, Dallas,
>>>
>>> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
>>> accident??
>>
>> They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
>> glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
>> accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
>> saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
>> the birds.
>> --
>> No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
>> Groucho Marx
>

[Loek]

MX,

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

The cases I had never were that easy as it looked. There was always
something "funny" part of the pyramid.

Got to go now. I'll be back tomorrow evening!

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" > schreef in bericht
...
> Loek writes:
>
>> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
>> accident??
>> (low time and failure to give right of way) Ah, you both were there,
>> right?
>
> It's a simple process of elimination. VFR conditions, both pilots required
> to
> see and avoid, tow plane has the right of way. The Cirrus aircraft failed
> to
> see and avoid and failed to yield right of way. There aren't too many
> other
> possibilities. It's unlikely to be a mechanical failure or weather.
>
> And as I've said, this has happened before, also with a Cirrus. Quite an
> eerie
> coincidence.
>
>> You may have read something I don't know about yet, but until you have
>> proven facts on paper there is no way you can give the Cirrus pilot the
>> blame / fault for this.
>
> Sure you can. Unless you can think of some other possible explanation?

[Bug Dout]

"John Ward" > writes:

> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot

He's a current ass.

--
The funny thing about driving your car off a cliff, I bet you're
still hitting those brakes.
- Jack Handey

[Bug Dout]

"Ian D" > writes:

> The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
> one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
> these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.

Last summer a doctor I and many others knew stalled a C150 at Lake Tahoe
and killed himself. Arrogrance would be an understatement for that
fellow. And yes, a friend who knew him better than me said the doc
expressed that: he had cheated death on the operating table often, he
could cheat it in the air.

--
The long-lived books of tomorrow are concealed somewhere amongst the
so-far unpublished MSS of today.
- Philip Unwin

[John Ward[_3_]]

Hi Loek,

Got it!

Thanks for the info', mate. :-))

Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?

Regards,
John Ward

"Loek" > wrote in message
...
> I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
> At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
> our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!
>
> Loek
>
> "John Ward" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>> Hi Bug Dout,
>>
>> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot, and is still with his
>> country's accident investigation board......,
>>
>> I'm a little hazy re the details of that last bit, but maybe Loek will
>> fill us in a bit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John Ward
>>
>> "Bug Dout" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Loek" > writes:
>>>
>>>> Mx, Dallas,
>>>>
>>>> How on earth do you both know all about the cause of this tragic
>>>> accident??
>>>
>>> They were making quite reasonable conjecture. Indeed the tow plane and
>>> glider had the legal right of way. More important as to the cause of the
>>> accident, who was going faster? Almost certainly the Cirrus. It's like
>>> saying the Hudson River plane was hit by birds. Not so, the plane hit
>>> the birds.
>>> --
>>> No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend.
>>> Groucho Marx
>>
>
>

[John Ward[_3_]]

You should have that seen to.



"Bug Dout" > wrote in message
...
> "John Ward" > writes:
>
>> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot
>
> He's a current ass.
>
> --
> The funny thing about driving your car off a cliff, I bet you're
> still hitting those brakes.
> - Jack Handey

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Bug Dout > wrote:

> "Ian D" > writes:
>
> > The conclusion as to why this was happening came down to
> > one word... arrogance. Being in the business of saving lives
> > these individuals felt that they could handle any situation.
>
> Last summer a doctor I and many others knew stalled a C150 at Lake Tahoe
> and killed himself. Arrogrance would be an understatement for that
> fellow. And yes, a friend who knew him better than me said the doc
> expressed that: he had cheated death on the operating table often, he
> could cheat it in the air.

I can certainly see where, being a doctor, flying might seem easy by
comparison and might not get the respect it deserves. The basic training
certainly is easier, just compare the amount of time you need to
dedicate to getting, say, a PPL with the amount of time needed for
medical school. But just because it's easy to learn the basics doesn't
mean you can treat it without respect....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

Loek writes:

> I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
> happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
> cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
> the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
> Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.

True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention was
drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to depend
on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What about
traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become aware
of the other aircraft.

Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but I
don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven otherwise.

There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
there were survivors.

[george]

On Feb 9, 6:55*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
> simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
> this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

This coming from some-one who has never flown an aircraft in real
time.
Remember that mixedup's only claim to flying is playing flying
simulator games.
And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Loek writes:
>
> > I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
> > happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
> > cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't know
> > the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown reason.
> > Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.
>
> True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
> simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics, and in
> this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.

It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

> There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other accident
> with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
> there were survivors.

You have awfully low standards for eerieness. Two accidents happening
the same way that just happened to involve the same type of aircraft is
not eerie, it's just happenstance.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose

A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
> are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.

Such as?

If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

[Loek]

????

Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how to
read this in the correct context?? Thanks

Loek

"Bug Dout" > schreef in bericht
...
> "John Ward" > writes:
>
>> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot
>
> He's a current ass.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
>> spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
>
> A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
> a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
model.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
> > are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.
>
> Such as?

Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
forward view, etc.

> If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
> accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an accident, not
> to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.

You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
investigation".

Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
this time around.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
> the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
> airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
> model.

So?

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
> had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
> forward view, etc.

Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

[Private]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash writes:
>>
>> > It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
>> > are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
> had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
> forward view, etc.
>
>> If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
>> accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an
>> accident, not
>> to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.
>
> You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
> investigation".
>
> Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
> yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
> this time around.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike,
Please don't feed the trolls.
It is similar to mud wrestling with pigs.
Real pilots accept that it is better to avoid bad weather rather than
attempt to change it.

Happy landings,

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
>> the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
>> airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
>> model.
>
> So?

So read your previous statement.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Feb 9, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> > spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
>
> A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
> a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

[george]

On Feb 10, 6:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that
starts at
> > the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
> > airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
> > model.
>
> So?

Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
lookout.

Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

[Loek]

Dear Mx,

I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
the future.

Cheers,

Loek

"Mxsmanic" > schreef in bericht
...
> Loek writes:
>
>> I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
>> happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
>> cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
>> know
>> the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
>> reason.
>> Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.
>
> True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
> simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
> and in
> this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
>
> Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention
> was
> drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
> situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
> depend
> on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
> about
> traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
> aware
> of the other aircraft.
>
> Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
> insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but
> I
> don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
> otherwise.
>
> There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
> accident
> with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
> there were survivors.

[Scien]

On Feb 9, 1:54*pm, "Loek" > wrote:
> Dear Mx,
>
> I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
> get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
> very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
> with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
> happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
> about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
> this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
> root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
> can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
> the future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Loek
>
> "Mxsmanic" > schreef in berichtnews:jnj0n5toiqf1s74ianib127ji2lok5q4ce@4ax .com...
>
> > Loek writes:
>
> >> I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
> >> happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
> >> cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. *(I don't
> >> know
> >> the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
> >> reason.
> >> Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of them.
>
> > True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other than
> > simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
> > and in
> > this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
>
> > Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his attention
> > was
> > drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
> > situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
> > depend
> > on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
> > about
> > traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
> > aware
> > of the other aircraft.
>
> > Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
> > insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened, but
> > I
> > don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
> > otherwise.
>
> > There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
> > accident
> > with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except that
> > there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

[John Ward[_3_]]

Hi Loek,

I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.

Regards,
John Ward


"Loek" > wrote in message
...
> ????
>
> Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how to
> read this in the correct context?? Thanks
>
> Loek
>
> "Bug Dout" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>> "John Ward" > writes:
>>
>>> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot
>>
>> He's a current ass.
>
>

[ManhattanMan]

John Ward wrote:
> Hi Loek,
>
> I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.
>


groan..............

[Loek]

:-))

I guess so...

Loek

"John Ward" > schreef in bericht
...
> Hi Loek,
>
> I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.
>
> Regards,
> John Ward
>
>
> "Loek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ????
>>
>> Do you mind helping me on the gramma here, Bug Dout... I'm not sure how
>> to read this in the correct context?? Thanks
>>
>> Loek
>>
>> "Bug Dout" > schreef in bericht
>> ...
>>> "John Ward" > writes:
>>>
>>>> Don't forget that Loek is a former F-16 pilot
>>>
>>> He's a current ass.
>>
>>

[Loek]

What's up MM?

Pain in the .. ?? :-))

Loek

"ManhattanMan" > schreef in bericht
...
> John Ward wrote:
>> Hi Loek,
>>
>> I wouldn't worry about it, mate - looks like he's bugged out of here.
>>
>
>
> groan..............

[Loek]

I fully agree, Mike.

Yes, I know Mx some time and I know he loves to troll. But for some reason
this time I had to react. Fine, so he's had his share of fun for what that's
worth...

Cheers,

Loek

"Scien" > schreef in bericht
...
On Feb 9, 1:54 pm, "Loek" > wrote:
> Dear Mx,
>
> I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
> get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an
> already
> very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
> with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know
> what
> happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy
> discussion
> about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group
> like
> this. Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find
> the
> root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then
> we
> can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
> the future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Loek
>
> "Mxsmanic" > schreef in
> berichtnews:jnj0n5toiqf1s74ianib127ji2lok5q4ce@4ax .com...
>
> > Loek writes:
>
> >> I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you can not know what really
> >> happened except making "wild" guesses. For the same reason a bar in the
> >> cockpit may have obstructed the view at the critical moment. (I don't
> >> know
> >> the cirrus!) Or was their attention drawn away for some yet unknown
> >> reason.
> >> Go ahead and find some other less logical reasons. There is lots of
> >> them.
>
> > True, there are jillions of potential reasons for the accident other
> > than
> > simple pilot error. But pilot error looms large in accident statistics,
> > and in
> > this case it's hard to imagine any other plausible explanation.
>
> > Even if something obstructed the pilot's view momentarily or his
> > attention
> > was
> > drawn elsewhere, it's still his fault, as he should have sufficient
> > situational awareness to know of the other aircraft without having to
> > depend
> > on a fraction of a second of perception. What about radio calls? What
> > about
> > traffic patterns? There are multiple ways in which he should have become
> > aware
> > of the other aircraft.
>
> > Unless the surviving pilot and passengers from the glider can shed some
> > insight into this accident, we may never know what actually happened,
> > but
> > I
> > don't think it's unreasonable to assume pilot error until proven
> > otherwise.
>
> > There's also the eerie coincidence of there being at least one other
> > accident
> > with a Cirrus that happened pretty much exactly the same way, except
> > that
> > there were survivors.

Mx is intentionally trolling you. It is likely he doesn't even
believe half the things he says, he just knows it will prompt people
into argument with him, where he will claim to misunderstand your
views, and come up with hasty conclusions to prompt you guys to
continue the argument. He has done it time and time again. It is
best to just ignore him, although few actually do.

Most folks here are correct as usual. No one knows for sure what
happened, and the investigation isn't complete. It really doesn't
matter who is legally at fault, anyone involved in the accident could
have likely made moves to prevent it. The lesson as usual is to try
and be more aware of your surroundings. It doesn't matter if it was
pilot error or not. It doesn't matter who had the right of way. Only
that constant vigilance can help prevent you from being in the same
positions as any of these poor folks.

Also, I am not trying to be callous here. My thoughts go out to the
people affected by this accident. The above is just trying to say
that there is something to learn or a reminder here for the people
left behind. Finger pointing helps no one.

Regards,
Mike

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
george > wrote:

> On Feb 9, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > george writes:
> > > And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> > > spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
> >
> > A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in
> > such
> > a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.
>
> http://www.standardcirrus.org/
> Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
> Colour me unsurprised

What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
when what he says is totally reasonable?

It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
says.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Private" > wrote:

> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Ash writes:
> >>
> >> > It's trivial to imagine many other plausible explanations. The others
> >> > are not LIKELY, but there are tons of scenarios which are plausible.
> >>
> >> Such as?
> >
> > Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
> > had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
> > forward view, etc.
> >
> >> If they are not likely, why bother to imagine them? The purpose of an
> >> accident investigation is to find the most probable cause for an
> >> accident, not
> >> to find alternative but unlikely explanations that exonerate the pilot.
> >
> > You said "plausible", not "relevant to the purpose of an accident
> > investigation".
> >
> > Nice to see that you're still twisting out of every argument to make
> > yourself look good, but you forgot to do your usual excessive snipping
> > this time around.
>
> Mike,
> Please don't feed the trolls.
> It is similar to mud wrestling with pigs.
> Real pilots accept that it is better to avoid bad weather rather than
> attempt to change it.

I'm a glider pilot, so I get a lot of fun out of flying in what other
pilots would commonly consider to be "bad weather". Likewise, I'm just
having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > Such as, Cirrus pilot had a heart attack thirty seconds before, Cirrus
> > had an engine failure, Cirrus hit large bird whose entrails covered the
> > forward view, etc.
>
> Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
> when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.

You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
plausible.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> george writes:
>
> > And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> > spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
>
> A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
> a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.

(The Cirrus surely has an even larger blind spot.)

So wot you're sorta saying fly...
A unununununununununununu B

instead of
A ----------------------- B

Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
*do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

--
Duncan.

[george]

On Feb 10, 11:11*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *george > wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 7:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > george writes:
> > > > And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> > > > spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
>
> > > A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in
> > > such
> > > a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.
>
> >http://www.standardcirrus.org/
> > Wow. Mixedup is wrong * * again.
> > Colour me unsurprised
>
> What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
> when what he says is totally reasonable?

> It's completely clear in context that "A Cirrus" in this case refers to
> one of the single engine aircraft built by Cirrus Design, NOT to one of
> the two models of sailplane built by Schempp-Hirth. Yes, there are
> sailplanes called "Cirrus", but this one was not a sailplane, just as he
> says.
>
Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
type.
As in C150, C177.
According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
happened on aerotow. :-(

Mixedup is not and never has been 'reasonable' ..
Nor has he ever actually flown a real aeroplane- either a sailplane or
a powerplane. He is only here because he has nowhere else to be

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So read your previous statement.

The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby aircraft.
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant. If the
pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must take
appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that blind
spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic visible.

See the AIM, 8-1-8 (j) (1).

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
> lookout.
>
> Comes under the heading of "airmanship"

So a failure to do so, leading to a midair collision, is clearly pilot error.
QED.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> http://www.standardcirrus.org/
> Wow. Mixedup is wrong again.
> Colour me unsurprised

The Cirrus in the incident under discussion was a powered airplane
manufactured by Cirrus Aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> What is it about this guy that people must jump to contradict him even
> when what he says is totally reasonable?

A great many people are unable to separate their animosity or affection
towards a particular person from the objective validity of what he or she
says.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Very true. However as you know and as I know every aircraft has not
> only the makers name but an extension that means a particular aircraft
> type.
> As in C150, C177.
> According to what I read of the report it stated that the accident
> happened on aerotow.

The only time Cirrus has been mentioned in news reports is as the name of the
powered airplane that collided with the tow plane and glider. And it descended
with an aircraft parachute, something that is widely known to be a feature of
Cirrus powered aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Have you not done/read any of flying training in MSFS? - I'm sure they'd
> cover situational awareness and lookout ('covering/clearing airspace').
> This is practiced all the time in real flying MX. It's just not
> possible to cover your blind spots all the time.

This pilot could have covered his blind spots better than he did, assuming
that blind spots had anything to do with it. It's still pilot error in all
probability.

What do you think caused this crash, if not pilot error?

> To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
> *do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they move the
airplane. Failure to do so may have a very grave effect on their situational
awareness, as this incident may have demonstrated. The failure to do so is a
pilot error.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
> plausible.

Only one is probable: pilot error. If you believe it is something other than
pilot error, explain why. None of the information I've seen concerning this
crash implies any cause other than pilot error.

[Mxsmanic]

Loek writes:

> I just cannot agree with you. You're reasoning is a little too easy and I
> get the impression it only serves the purpose of finger pointing an already
> very dead person. (At least I think he is?) His family will be quite happy
> with you. Again: you and I were not there so we can not and do not know what
> happened exactly. Wild guesses are of no use at all but a healthy discussion
> about possible causes is something different and even useful in a group like
> this.

A wild guess would be one that is no more probable than any other. What is
improbable about this explanation? What other explanations are of greater or
equal probability?

> Leave it to the very experienced and evenly qualified NTSB to find the
> root cause of this tragic accident so we all can learn from it. And then we
> can take measures to prevent an accident like this from happening again in
> the future.

I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
has finished with it.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So read your previous statement.
>
> The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
> maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby aircraft.

No ****?

> Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant. If the
> pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must take
> appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that blind
> spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic visible.

Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[ManhattanMan]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I don't see any reason to suspend discussion of the accident until the NTSB
> has finished with it.

And I don't see any reason to continue a "discussion" with a
narcissistic, arrogant, conceited, neurotic, pious, prick that has cross
posted this "discussion" for his own gratification in his long
established trolling existence...

What happened Mx, get off the meds??

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?

Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning. Typically
you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.

If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?
>
> Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning. Typically
> you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
> before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
> is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
> front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.
>
> Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
> presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
> flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.
>
> If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
> have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

Yeah, sure.

Total lack of understanding noted.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote

> Likewise, I'm just
> having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.

Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.

Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
rooms.
--
Jim in NC

[romeomike]

Mike Ash wrote:
> Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
>
> You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
> plausible.
>

Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Mike Ash" > wrote
>
> > Likewise, I'm just
> > having fun here, not attempting a serious discussion.
>
> Ahh, the reason most often given why people engage a troll. As a result,
> people that are attempting serious discussion leave by the bucket-fulls.
>
> Really, man, engage him in private e-mail. Don't take a dump in our living
> rooms.

Funny, I see the cause and effect as backwards: only reason I'm
desperate enough to toy with the troll is because there's no legitimate
traffic going on.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
romeomike > wrote:

> Mike Ash wrote:
> > Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
> >
> > You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
> > plausible.
> >
>
> Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
> Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
> at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.

It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> writes:
>
> > Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?
>
> Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning.

But hangon, you just said..."
The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby
aircraft.
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant.
If the pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must
take appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that
blind spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic
visible"


> Typically
> you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
> before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
> is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
> front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

Really? OK, you are straight and level. An a/c with the same horizontal
airspeed is below you and climbing. While they *should* see you, lets
assume they do not (sun is where you are, pretty much). What will you
do now? Hmm lets see, "If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic
below is not necessarily an issue.".

It seems you do not know the subject - in short - you don't know what
you are talking about. How are you lookouts in MSFS - pretty non-
existent I bet.

> Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
> presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
> flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.
>
> If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
> have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

OK, so a series of contradictions from you now - see that first stupid
statement you made, better quote it again, you seem famous at sniping
stuff out..."
Under visual flight rules the obligation to see and avoid is constant.
If the pilot knows of a blind spot in his field of vision, then he must
take appropriate action to maintain his awareness of traffic within that
blind spot, such as by maneuvering the aircraft to make any such traffic
visible".

Either you stick with your first claim, or you retract it and explain
yourself, or you just admit you don't know what real world flying is
about or like.

--
Duncan.

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:26:25 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> Mixedup is not and never has been 'reasonable' ..
> Nor has he ever actually flown a real aeroplane- either a sailplane or
> a powerplane. He is only here because he has nowhere else to be

Of course, you so bored, as many others are, you play with him.

Remember this next time you moan about how RAP is "going to the trolls".

[Richard[_11_]]

On Feb 9, 11:17*am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > george writes:
>
> >> And as to 'situational awareness' there's an extremely large blind
> >> spot in the modern sailplane right under the nose
>
> > A Cirrus isn't a sailplane. And a pilot with a blind spot needs to fly in such
> > a way that he makes allowances for his inability to see in that blind spot.
>
> All real airplanes have a large blind spot through an arc that starts at
> the nose, follows the fuselage around to the tail, and continues over the
> airplane to the rearmost window or top of the windscreen depending on
> model.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

And still doesn't change the circumstances to with, the tow plane had
ROW and that had nothing at all to do with MSXs's non-experience
except to allow yet another usenet fjucktard (yes 'George', you) with
a chance to chime in and contribute to the noise.

Geez, grow up ladies.

[george]

On Feb 10, 5:46*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:

> Funny, I see the cause and effect as backwards: only reason I'm
> desperate enough to toy with the troll is because there's no legitimate
> traffic going on.
>

Notice how the on topic traffic has gone up and the kooks have
deserted the group...

Mixedup may be of some use after all

[george]

On Feb 11, 6:59*am, Richard > wrote:

> And still doesn't change the circumstances to with, the tow plane had
> ROW and that had nothing at all to do with MSXs's non-experience
> except to allow yet another usenet fjucktard (yes 'George', you) with
> a chance to chime in and contribute to the noise.

There's a cartoon somewhere in the world of a wrecked car and an
ambulance.
With the title of
"But I was in the right"

You might notice that amongst the groups he crossposted his crap to
includes rec.aviation.student.
Perhaps where you are its okay to bull**** about being a pilot and
offer uninformed advice as to what the cause of an accident was before
the investigators have done their job.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Perhaps where you are its okay to bull**** about being a pilot and
> offer uninformed advice as to what the cause of an accident was before
> the investigators have done their job.

What is wrong with advice to see and avoid, or pointing out that tow planes
have right of way?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> But hangon, you just said..."
> The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
> maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby
> aircraft.

Yes, but the probability of conflicting traffic varies with the relative
positions of the aircraft concerned.

When climbing after take-off, for example, it's much less likely that one will
be hit from below than it is that one will hit something above.

There will always be blind spots, but a pilot can anticipate the areas where
other aircraft are most likely to be and can concentrate his efforts to work
around blind spots on those areas, if it is not practical to work around all
blind spots.

As an extreme example, a taildragger taxiing to a runway needs to worry a lot
more about aircraft in a blind spot in front of it than aircraft in a blind
spot behind.

> Really?

Yes, really.

> OK, you are straight and level. An a/c with the same horizontal
> airspeed is below you and climbing. While they *should* see you, lets
> assume they do not (sun is where you are, pretty much). What will you
> do now? Hmm lets see, "If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic
> below is not necessarily an issue.".

Short of constantly turning the aircraft in circles, it's going to be really
hard to see below and behind you, and since you are moving forward, it's also
unlikely that an aircraft climbing behind you will overtake you. Additionally,
if you've taken care to assess the traffic situation in advance, you'll have a
good idea about where traffic might be.

There's a big difference between worrying about traffic below and behind you
and worrying about traffic crossing right in front of your windshield. It's a
bit like worrying about a skydiver dropping onto your nose while you're
descending towards terrain. If you cannot cover everything, you look towards
the area of highest risk.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Its something real pilots know and compensate for by keeping a good
> lookout.

So how do some real pilots hit tow planes?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. Real pilots
> *do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.

How do they manage to collide with tow planes and gliders, then?

[romeomike]

Mike Ash wrote:
> In article >,
> romeomike > wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>> Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
>>>
>>> You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
>>> plausible.
>>>
>> Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
>> Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
>> at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.
>
> It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
> evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.
>

My observation over many years here is that when he posts something that
seems "reasonable" it's his way of subtly drawing people into an
escalating and frustrating attack and evade. It's not an educational to-
and-fro, just an exercise in "how far do I have to go to **** people off."

[Gilbert Smith[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

writes:
>
>> Absent rolling inverted, how do you see below?
>
>Normally you shouldn't need to see below without advance warning. Typically
>you see below by anticipating where you will be and checking for traffic
>before you get there. If you are in level flight or climbing, traffic below
>is not necessarily an issue. If you are descending, your descent path is in
>front of you and you can inspect it for traffic before you follow it.

So you would be making the same mistake !!!
The tug and glider came up from below, right in front of him.

>
>Additionally, if you cannot see and avoid, you can try to rule out the
>presence of traffic in other ways, as by communicating on the radio, obtaining
>flight following, using on-board equipment to see other aircraft, and so on.
>
>If you collide with another aircraft and survive under VFR, you'll generally
>have to explain why you didn't see the other aircraft.

[Peter Dohm]

"romeomike" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Ash wrote:
>> In article >,
>> romeomike > wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>>> Ah, there's that famous excessive snip.
>>>>
>>>> You said "plausible", not "very probable". All of those scenarios are
>>>> plausible.
>>>>
>>> Now maybe you are beginning to answer your own question above as to why
>>> Mx gets so much heat. I simply don't understand why anyone engages him
>>> at all. Learned my lesson a few years back.
>>
>> It's one thing to attack his evasion, quite another to pull your own
>> evasion and attack him for saying something completely reasonable.
>>
>
> My observation over many years here is that when he posts something that
> seems "reasonable" it's his way of subtly drawing people into an
> escalating and frustrating attack and evade. It's not an educational to-
> and-fro, just an exercise in "how far do I have to go to **** people off."

Very true. :-(

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> But hangon, you just said..."
>> The existence of a blind spot does not relieve the pilot of the need to
>> maintain situational awareness, including an awareness of nearby
>> aircraft.
>
> Yes, but the probability of conflicting traffic varies with the relative
> positions of the aircraft concerned.
>
> When climbing after take-off, for example, it's much less likely that one will
> be hit from below than it is that one will hit something above.

Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote

> You want to know who's destroying the group? It's Bertie and the others
> who just go for full out, no-holds-barred insult fests.

Without chum, sharks rarely go into a feeding frenzy, within sight of man.
So, why tolerate a feeding frenzy? Get rid of the chum's source.

> I see nothing wrong with some on-topic discussion just because one of
> the participants is a jerk with no sense of his own limitations. It is
> possible to participate in a conversation with him without letting it
> get out of control.

Really? Name one thread, where a discussion with him did not degenerate
into one of his famous bait and switch strategies, with all who engage going
ballistic from his rediculous tactics. He lives to argue topics that have
no natural argument. He will not listen to logic, or valid rebuttals to his
views, when it is all said and done. That sounds like out of control, to
me, and that is how every one of the threads he jumps into ends. (he jumps
into EVERY thread that has a good discussion going. EVERY one, EVERY time,
destroying the discussion in the process.)

> You want to save the group? Start some on-topic posts.

Pretty hard, when so many have left out of frustration. Much of the
frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?

Are they? You'd have to roll inverted to see someone coming up from behind.

You don't need to drop the nose to see someone below and in front of you when
you're climbing, unless he is climbing even faster. But in that case, you
should also worry about someone climbing from behind or directly below, which
you won't see by dropping the nose.

[Mxsmanic]

Gilbert Smith writes:

> So you would be making the same mistake !!!
> The tug and glider came up from below, right in front of him.

Then someone was where he didn't belong.

[MikeW[_3_]]

Morgans wrote:

> If you feel you have to reply to MX's post to warn others, consider a
> boilerplate warning something like the following.
>
> "The poster (MXS whatever) responsible for the previous post is not a
> pilot, and is considered to be a troll. Consider his posts to be
> argumentative and unreliable. Consult a responsible and experienced
> pilot (you would trust with your life) in a private communication
> before you believe any advice or claims the troll has put forth on
> this forum."

Good idea, I like that.
--
MikeW
What goes up must come down......unless it orbits

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Then why are real pilots taught to drop the nose occasionally during climb?
>
> Are they? You'd have to roll inverted to see someone coming up from behind.

The word "behind" was not mentioned in the previous post and using it now
is misdirection.

And yes, they are.

> You don't need to drop the nose to see someone below and in front of you when
> you're climbing, unless he is climbing even faster. But in that case, you
> should also worry about someone climbing from behind or directly below, which
> you won't see by dropping the nose.

In most of the common Cessnas the nose will prevent you from seeing traffic
above you in a climb, especially if you are less than 6' tall.

But you would know that if you had ever actually been in an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[romeomike]

That is a fact.

Morgans wrote:
Much of the
> frustration comes from people continuing to support and enable trolls. If
> he was ignored, the stupid posts from him would stop, people would come back
> and stay, and many good on topic discussions would be taking place.

[Loek]

Almost overlooked this one John. Sorry about that.

We are flying the F-16 since 1980. And we may still have to continue to fly
this bird for a while. Politics as you may expect. But we are looking at the
Joint Strike Fighter as the next fighter for our AirForce. Fingers crossed.
No hard decisions have been made yet by our politicians.

Loek

"John Ward" > schreef in bericht
...
> Hi Loek,
>
> Got it!
>
> Thanks for the info', mate. :-))
>
> Just out of curiosity, what are your fighter pilots flying these days?
>
> Regards,
> John Ward
>
> "Loek" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm retired now, John. Also for the investigation board.
>> At this moment I am involved with the selection of candidate pilots for
>> our Air Force as a part timer. Lots of good fun and even self motivating!
>>
>> Loek

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On Feb 9, 9:54*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Possible, but not very probable. Why look for highly improbable explanations
> when there is a very probable and plausible one (pilot error)?

The way I'd bet it goes is, unless the guy transmitted something to
suggest there was a problem or somebody saw the aircraft fail before
the collision, there's not going to be enough evidence to suggest
other theories. The investigators will settle on the simplest scenario
using by-the-book methods and since there were fatalities they'll
reconstruct their idea of what happened for training purposes.

If they want to assign blame rather than accept it, at the very least
they'll find him in violation of 14CFR 91.13 ("Careless or reckless
operation") and/or 91.113 (Right of Way.)

As for the Cirrus and your comment about collisions, having flown one
recently, I would consider the instrument panel rather than the
airplane itself. The Cirrus is nimble as hell and has great
visibility, but, the Garmin and Avidyne panels are so sexy they can be
mesmerizing. If fly the airplane by autopilot knob and heading bug,
you're more likely to be fixated on the panel rather than looking out
the window for your typical VFR awareness. A pilot could get into a
bad habit of flying low-altitude VFR as if it was IFR, where your eyes
are always on the panel.

-c
CFI

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On Feb 9, 4:45*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > To be honest, your comment is just ridiculous and stupid. *Real pilots
> > *do* maintain a procedurally based and trained lookout.
>
> They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they move the
> airplane.

Thank you for using the word "they."

You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots. Ever see rear-view
mirrors on a passenger jet? Ever see one doing a clearing turn? Ever
see an airplane doing clearing turns in a traffic pattern? I've ridden
in B-17s and while the view from the tail is spectacular, the pilots
have no access to it, and they fly in a straight line.

Here's a thing people are just starting to figure out: Pilots A and B
fly an airway by hand. They're off the center of the airway some small
or fractional number of miles instead of following a fixed line like
ants. Now, Pilots C, D, E and F fly Garmin glass panels, they program
in the routes and let the airplane fly them along the airway.
Okay...so, now the latter four pilots are all flying an identical
profile, at all kinds of different speeds, dead center down the
airway. See the problem?

If you're in a Lancair or a Bonanza and don't get your head out of the
cockpit and ignore the extraneous info on a glass panel, you might
chew up a 172 flying the same route or approach ahead of you at a
slower speed whereas before humans would naturally spread themselves
out on the airways.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Stephen!" > wrote:

> Alpha Propellerhead > wrote in
> :
>
> >> They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
> >> move
> > the
> >> airplane.
> >
> > Thank you for using the word "they."
> >
> > You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.
>
>
> You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?

I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
for visibility is silly as a general rule.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jim[_26_]]

Mike Ash wrote:
> In article >,
> "Stephen!" > wrote:
>
>> Alpha Propellerhead > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
>>>> move
>>> the
>>>> airplane.
>>> Thank you for using the word "they."
>>>
>>> You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.
>>
>> You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?
>
> I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
> precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
> that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
> for visibility is silly as a general rule.
>
I always drop the outside wing a bit on base to make sure that no nordo
is sneaking up on long straight-in final before I make the turn base to
final. Airport visibility on the turn to final is just fine, but my
wing is attached to the bottom of the plane :)

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jim > wrote:

> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Stephen!" > wrote:
> >
> >> Alpha Propellerhead > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>>> They move their heads, and, if necessary to cover blind spots, they
> >>>> move
> >>> the
> >>>> airplane.
> >>> Thank you for using the word "they."
> >>>
> >>> You don't "move the airplane" to cover blind spots.
> >>
> >> You've never lifted a wing to see under it before you turn?
> >
> > I normally "cut the corner" from downwind to base in the pattern
> > precisely so that my wing doesn't block my view of the airport during
> > that portion of the flight. The idea that you don't move the airplane
> > for visibility is silly as a general rule.
> >
> I always drop the outside wing a bit on base to make sure that no nordo
> is sneaking up on long straight-in final before I make the turn base to
> final. Airport visibility on the turn to final is just fine, but my
> wing is attached to the bottom of the plane :)

My wing is on the "shoulder", basically right where my shoulder is. The
result is that I can't see below me beyond 90 degrees to the side. Which
is where the airport is for the last section of a standard downwind leg.
So I slice off that corner to keep the angle to the numbers at 90
degrees. Obviously, different aircraft will have different needs here.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon