See and avoid

[Kees Mies]

Hi All,

Just wondering.
Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????

Kees.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Kees Mies) said:
>Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?

They do. They're called wings. If they're level, the plane isn't
turning.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Home pages are the pet rock of the 90s. They all have them, they all think
they're very cute. But in a few years they're going to look back and be
pretty embarrassed. -- Kim Alm

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kees Mies wrote:
>
> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?

'Cause they don't need them.

> The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
> problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????

Just remember - left wing goes down, probably turning left. Right wing goes down,
probably turning right.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Gig Giacona]

"Kees Mies" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering.
> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
> The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
> problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????
>
> Kees.


Do you mean like blinkers?

Gig "If you can read this you are too close" Giacona

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> advice.
>
> You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish
> the wings.

And you're going to be able to see a turn signal blinker further away than you
can see the wings? Get real.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Bill Denton]

Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
advice.

You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish
the wings.

The headings of both yours and the other aircraft affect your ability to
distinguish the wings.


"Kees Mies" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering.
> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
> The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
> problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????
>
> Kees.

[Dale]

In article >,
"Bill Denton" > wrote:

> Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> advice.
>
> You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish
> the wings.

If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely
the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA
aircraft.

Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your
viewpoint, you're on a collision course.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[C J Campbell]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> > advice.
> >
> > You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can
distinguish
> > the wings.
>
> If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely
> the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA
> aircraft.
>
> Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your
> viewpoint, you're on a collision course.
>

Not necessarily. The dot could be moving directly away from you.

[SD]

On 18 Mar 2004 06:57:21 -0800, (Kees Mies) wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Just wondering.
>Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
>The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
>problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????
>
>Kees.


So when would I have to use my turn indicators.... When I am making a
5-10 degree correction or say more than a 30 degree turn? What if I
am doing a 360 steep turn or some other manuever?

I can see a whole new chapter in the regs now.


Scott

[Bill Denton]

Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals. I was only discussing: You
can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish the
wings


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
> >
> > Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> > advice.
> >
> > You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can
distinguish
> > the wings.
>
> And you're going to be able to see a turn signal blinker further away than
you
> can see the wings? Get real.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Bill Denton]

While possibly a fair assumption, "GA" isn't mentioned in either my post or
the original post.


"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> > advice.
> >
> > You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can
distinguish
> > the wings.
>
> If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely
> the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA
> aircraft.
>
> Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your
> viewpoint, you're on a collision course.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals.

The post to which you were replying asked why we don't have turn signals on
planes. That's the entire point of the discussion. So, yes, you WERE discussing
turn signals.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Bill Denton]

No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin, both of
which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which
discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
> >
> > Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals.
>
> The post to which you were replying asked why we don't have turn signals
on
> planes. That's the entire point of the discussion. So, yes, you WERE
discussing
> turn signals.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin, both of
> which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which
> discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post.

Then you can't read. From my post

>> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?

>'Cause they don't need them.

I went on to say that that's because you can see the wings tilt, indicating a
turn.

>Just remember - left wing goes down, probably turning left. Right wing goes down,
>probably turning right.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Bill Denton]

As I stated: "neither of which discussed turn signals other than in
reference to the original post".

As I stated in my original post: "Everybody talking about "looking at the
wings" needs to rethink their
advice". I think that makes it pretty clear what I am responding to.

If you want to play these silly-ass games for the rest of the day, knock
yourself out. I've seen you do it before. I long ago determined that you are
one of those people who will "argue with a fence post", as we say in the
South. So, do whatever you wish; my posts are there and I think everyone
here is quite able to understand them, though some may choose not to do so.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
> >
> > No, I was replying to your first post and the one from Paul Tomblin,
both of
> > which were discussing the position of the wings, and neither of which
> > discussed turn signals other than in reference to the original post.
>
> Then you can't read. From my post
>
> >> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
>
> >'Cause they don't need them.
>
> I went on to say that that's because you can see the wings tilt,
indicating a
> turn.
>
> >Just remember - left wing goes down, probably turning left. Right wing
goes down,
> >probably turning right.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your
> > viewpoint, you're on a collision course.
>
> Not necessarily. The dot could be moving directly away from you.

That's still a collision course. It will just take a lot longer (and a lot
more fuel) for you to eventually collide). You'll either catch up, or the
other aircraft will eventually fly all the way around the world and catch up
with you.

:)

[Malcolm Teas]

(Kees Mies) wrote in message >...
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering.
> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
> The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
> problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????

Because if you're close enough to see turn signals, you're way too
close to the other plane! Cars travel a few feet apart. 1/4 mile is
very close for an airplane.

-Malcolm Teas

[Dave Stadt]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > Everybody talking about "looking at the wings" needs to rethink their
> > advice.
> >
> > You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can
distinguish
> > the wings.
>
> If he's so far away that you can't determine what he's doing it's likely
> the other traffic isn't a factor...at least not at the speeds of most GA
> aircraft.
>
> Rely on relative motion. If the dot isn't moving relative to your
> viewpoint, you're on a collision course.

Only if the dot gets bigger.

>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> While possibly a fair assumption, "GA" isn't mentioned in either my post
or
> the original post.

The original post said _light_ aircraft and see and avoid type flight.
Doubt he was talking about 747s on parade into or out of ORD.

[Andrew Gideon]

Bill Denton wrote:

> You can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish
> the wings.

So? The OP asked about turn signals. Wings may not be visible from
infinite distance, but they work better than the turn signals proposed by
the OP. If you've a better suggestion, let's hear it.

If not, then the advice given about wings serving the same purpose at a
greater distance remains the best answer to the OP's "why no turn signals"
question.

> The headings of both yours and the other aircraft affect your ability to
> distinguish the wings.

True, but that's known and useful. For example, I saw an airplane today
with the wings "missing". But that told me where they were (directly
before and after the plane in my line of sight), and that told me the
plane's attitude.

This would also be true about turn signals too, BTW, but without the same
utility of the lack of visibility. For example, if I cannot see the signal
on the far side, I cannot deduce whether or not it is on.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> I long ago determined that you are
> one of those people who will "argue with a fence post", as we say in the
> South.

And you're dumb as one (as we say in the South).

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[T-Boy]

In article >,
says...
> Reread my post; I wasn't discussing turn-signals. I was only discussing: You
> can see an entire airplane much farther away than you can distinguish the
> wings

I'd tend to disagree with that. A turning plane is often easier to
spot. Or... here's a good example, ever tried spotting a plane that's
comin' right at you? (how about a glider?) - bloody hard to see (until
they initiate a turn).

In short, the wings are the easiest bits to see - yep, sure, it all
depends on the angle of the dangle.

--
Duncan

[Brad Z]

This is possibly the stupidest debate about the stupidest topic on the
usenet.

Brad Z.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bill Denton wrote:
> >
> > I long ago determined that you are
> > one of those people who will "argue with a fence post", as we say in the
> > South.
>
> And you're dumb as one (as we say in the South).
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Peter Duniho]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:7wv6c.38286$Cb.580575@attbi_s51...
> This is possibly the stupidest debate about the stupidest topic on the
> usenet.

You've GOT to be kidding. Usenet can get WAY stupider than this. I've seen
no evidence of a lower bound.

[Cub Driver]

Well, for one thing, many light airplanes were built before turn
indicators were adopted :)

For another, it's easier to see the airplane turning than it is to see
a turn indicator.

On 18 Mar 2004 06:57:21 -0800, (Kees Mies) wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Just wondering.
>Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
>The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
>problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????
>
>Kees.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Captain Wubba]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message news:<7wv6c.38286$Cb.580575@attbi_s51>...
> This is possibly the stupidest debate about the stupidest topic on the
> usenet.

LOL. Which is, in itself, pretty impressive. But just wait...Eagleson
hasn't weighed in yet on the 'Eagleson Turn Signal System': "Wings
going downitudinous towards the extreme turning make the
signaling/turning ratio of lightedness bright so he can see!"

Cap


>
> Brad Z.
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Bill Denton wrote:
> > >
> > > I long ago determined that you are
> > > one of those people who will "argue with a fence post", as we say in the
> > > South.
> >
> > And you're dumb as one (as we say in the South).
> >
> > George Patterson
> > Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
> would
> > not yield to the tongue.

[Teacherjh]

>>
This is possibly the stupidest debate about the stupidest topic on the
usenet.
<<

Say, why don't airplanes have horns to honk? If you see an airplane with its
blinkers flashing a left turn, and he's going right into your lane, you can't
honk to get him out of the way.

Now is that dumb or what?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:


> Say, why don't airplanes have horns to honk? If you see an airplane with
> its blinkers flashing a left turn, and he's going right into your lane,
> you can't honk to get him out of the way.

Who can hear a honk over the engine noise? Flares...we need flares. We can
fire a few across the bow of anyone about to turn into our lane. And then
if they continue, we fire a little closer.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> Say, why don't airplanes have horns to honk?

I've seen one that did (or maybe has?). Dunno how they got the thing approved.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Well, for one thing, many light airplanes were built before turn
> indicators were adopted :)

Dunno if that's applicable. Many cars were too!

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Judah]

"Shoot and avoid and ask questions later."


Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

> Teacherjh wrote:
>
>
>> Say, why don't airplanes have horns to honk? If you see an airplane
>> with its blinkers flashing a left turn, and he's going right into your
>> lane, you can't honk to get him out of the way.
>
> Who can hear a honk over the engine noise? Flares...we need flares.
> We can fire a few across the bow of anyone about to turn into our lane.
> And then if they continue, we fire a little closer.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Judah]

Perhaps the solution is to eliminate the idea of electrical turn signals,
and replace them with large appendages out the left seat -

If the appendage is raised up above the airframe, it's a right turn. If
it's extended beyond the left wing, it's a left turn. And if it's pointed
down, expect slow flight.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>> Well, for one thing, many light airplanes were built before turn
>> indicators were adopted :)
>
> Dunno if that's applicable. Many cars were too!
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot
> that would
> not yield to the tongue.
>

[Brien K. Meehan]

(Kees Mies) wrote in message >...

> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?

Because there's nowhere left on the panel to put the control.

What I'd really like is a horn.

[Chris Hoffmann]

Guy at work wants to know if you flash your high beams when you're
overtaking another plane.....Comic genius, that guy.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Teacherjh wrote:
> >
> > Say, why don't airplanes have horns to honk?
>
> I've seen one that did (or maybe has?). Dunno how they got the thing
approved.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Roger Halstead]

On 19 Mar 2004 21:04:26 -0800, (Brien K.
Meehan) wrote:

(Kees Mies) wrote in message >...
>
>> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
>
>Because there's nowhere left on the panel to put the control.
>
>What I'd really like is a horn.

Man, can you imagine the db from that thing?
It'd make sonic booms seem tame.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:7wv6c.38286$Cb.580575@attbi_s51...
> This is possibly the stupidest debate about the stupidest topic on the
> usenet.

HEY! (well, it is kind of lame)

Must keep the term alive!

Chris
(aka SeeAndAvoid)

[C J Campbell]

"Kees Mies" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering.
> Why do light aircraft do not have turning indicators?
> The see-and-avoid concept has its shortcomings, but I have sometimes more
> problems with see-and-what-is-he/she-upto??????

While everyone has pointed out that turn signals would be almost impossible
to see on aircraft in flight, there have been times when I wished for turn
signals on airplanes when taxiing. Brake lights, too.

[Teacherjh]

>>
there have been times when I wished for turn
signals on airplanes when taxiing. Brake lights, too.
<<

Actually there was some talk of regular traffic lights at taxiway
intersections. I don't know what came of it but I never saw any.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Kees Mies]

Hi All,

After reading all the posts about my suggestion for turning indicators
it is not such a good idea.
But a horn... I would really go for it.

Every body knows about these guys strolling on the taxiway with
absolutely no intension to get out of the way.
In a car you honk them or give them a mighty roar from your engine and
make your car jump forward a couple of inches in a threatening manner.
First of all, my O-200 is not capable of giving mighty roars and
threat somebody with a running meat grinder is just soooooo not
polite.

Another nuisance in aviation in which a horn would be handy is
refueling.
One is waiting in line for fuel and you see a guy refuel and walk away
to pay instead of pushing his plane aside for the next one.
Ok, I think, not very thoughtful but I can live with that.
The very same guy returns –and this happens all the time- start to
load luggage, explain to his passengers what an aircraft is, take
photographs or even stay away to have lunch and not return for hours.
This really wants you to grab your tow bar, jump out and work him over
a bit.
A horn would do as well.

Don't understand me wrong, I'm very forgiving, patient and above all
not aggressive by default but some people's sole existence seems to
irritate others.
I guess these are the same people who block aisles with their shopping
trolleys or swarm four or five wide when they are cycling on narrow
roads.

I go off shopping now, to the supermarket with its crowded parking
lot.
Hmmmm. I need fuel as well.
Better check if my car's horn is in good working order.

Bye Kees.

P.S. It's Monday morning now, it figures.
P.S.P.S. I don' t give up on humanity (yet)

[John Galban]

(Kees Mies) wrote in message >...
>
> Another nuisance in aviation in which a horn would be handy is
> refueling.
> One is waiting in line for fuel and you see a guy refuel and walk away
> to pay instead of pushing his plane aside for the next one.

I can recall a few occasion where a horn would have come in very
handy. Of course, in the case of the guy who walks in to pay the
bill, it's unlikely a horn would make a difference. It's pretty
obvious that you're sitting there with your engine running. Some
people just don't care.

Worst case I had was a guy who parked his Baron at the self-serve
pump in Fairbanks. He left the plane blocking the pumps while he went
into the lounge to take a shower!

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)