Accident report on the midair at Tenino

[C J Campbell]

Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:


NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.

On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had departed
Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and was
en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant onboard
each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of the
Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91 regulations.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots received
weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
services at the time of the collision.

The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318 degrees.
The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never saw
the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched down
and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the angle
of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able to
maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling out
of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been hit
by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much they
moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some trees
and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the south.
The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby house.
The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic heading
of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.

A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was. The
witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
stated, "[I] saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of sight
over some trees.

The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and left
lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
this location.

The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
one-half mile south of the main cabin.

At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the Olympia
Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles,
broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
Mercury.

[Karl Treier]

OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing that
the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch down.

[Peter R.]

Karl Treier ) wrote:

> OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR?

This would depend on the terrain elevation. VFR cruise altitudes are
required above 3,000 feet AGL (above ground level).

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

Peter R. ) wrote:

> Karl Treier ) wrote:
>
> > OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR?
>
> This would depend on the terrain elevation. VFR cruise altitudes are
> required above 3,000 feet AGL (above ground level).

Whoops, I should add that this is valid for VFR flight in the US, where
the accident occurred. I have no idea about the regulations in other
countries.

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Karl Treier" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR?
>

Not required if you're within 3000 feet of the surface. The report doesn't
give a precise location, but there is terrain southeast of Tenino of
sufficient elevation.

[Bob Chilcoat]

The C-170B must have one helluva lot of elevator authority. I can't belive
that the CG wasn't back in the tail somewhere after losing the whole engine!

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
> that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
>
> NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
> Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
> Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
>
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors.
> Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
> completed.
>
> On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
> N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
> nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had
departed
> Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
> Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and
was
> en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant
onboard
> each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
> pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of
the
> Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
> prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91
regulations.
>
> According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots
received
> weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
> aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
> services at the time of the collision.
>
> The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
> sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318
degrees.
> The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
> scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never
saw
> the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched
down
> and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the
angle
> of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
> realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able
to
> maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
> reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
> see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
> airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
> easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling
out
> of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been
hit
> by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
> losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
> land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much
they
> moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
> speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
> right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some
trees
> and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the
south.
> The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
> rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby
house.
> The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic
heading
> of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.
>
> A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
> the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
> airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was.
The
> witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
> then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
> stated, "[I] saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
> straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
> stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
> when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
> stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
> silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of
sight
> over some trees.
>
> The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
> of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and
left
> lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
> this location.
>
> The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
> approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
> rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
> area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
> one-half mile south of the main cabin.
>
> At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the
Olympia
> Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
> collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute
miles,
> broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
> degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
> Mercury.
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
> that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Karl Treier" > wrote in message
...
> OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing that
> the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch down.

It appears that both planes were below 3000' AGL. Although Tenino is at
about 300' the surrounding terrain pokes up over 1000.' It is a favorite
area for instructors to demonstrate to students how rising terrain can meet
lowering clouds, since such conditions can be found there very frequently.
In fact, that is where my instructor taught me about CFIT when I was a
student. Reading the accident report it appears that both planes may have
had their altitude restricted by low clouds, which is pretty much a normal
state of affairs around here. The report notes that neither pilot was using
flight following. It does not say that flight following might well have not
been available in that area and that altitude. Radio reception out there is
spotty at best. I almost always lose both radio and radar contact somewhere
in the area south of SCOOT, even though I am flying a published IFR approach
and on an IFR flight plan.

The other thing is that from that area north there is a lot of flight
training going on, with airplanes constantly maneuvering, climbing,
descending, and practicing IFR maneuvers with one pilot under the hood. It
is just inside the 15 DME arc for the VOR/DME approach into Olympia and near
the final approach course and not all that far from the published holding
pattern for the missed approaches into Olympia. There are likely to be two
or three planes flying these approaches at any one time. Consequently there
are so many airplanes flying at odd altitudes and odd directions that for
all practical purposes the VFR altitude rules might as well not exist. For
that matter, these have to be the most widely ignored regulations in the
country, especially in the West.

You have to keep a sharp eye out. Sometimes even that is not enough.

I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die. That is what I have always
been told. I guess in a 170, at least, that is not true. I would guess that
the engine weighs about 270 lbs. with accessories and sits about 20 inches
forward of the datum. He also lost the prop and part of the cowl. The 170 is
a tailwheel airplane, so landing gear would be unaffected. (Now there is an
interesting argument in favor of tailwheel airplanes -- if your engine falls
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

He probably would not even have nosed over if he hadn't hit the trees and
power line.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:59:03 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

Minor nit... there's a small error in the report. The LH cabin door
of the 170 was knocked off the airplane in flight (not the RH door)
and it was found near the section of cowling mentioned.

I've since heard of another 170 that lost the entire FWF in flight
when one prop blade departed the aircraft (resulting imbalance
shook the whole FWF off of the airplane).

There is supposedly a picture hanging on the wall someplace near
Spokane (Felts?) of this thing gliding down with no FWF.

Bela P. Havasreti

>Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
>that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
>
>NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
>Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
>Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
>
>This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
>Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
>completed.
>
>On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
>N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
>nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had departed
>Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
>Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and was
>en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant onboard
>each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
>pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of the
>Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
>prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91 regulations.
>
>According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots received
>weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
>aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
>services at the time of the collision.
>
>The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
>sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318 degrees.
>The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
>scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never saw
>the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched down
>and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the angle
>of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
>realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able to
>maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
>reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
>see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
>airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
>easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling out
>of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been hit
>by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
>losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
>land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much they
>moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
>speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
>right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some trees
>and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the south.
>The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
>rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby house.
>The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic heading
>of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.
>
>A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
>the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
>airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was. The
>witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
>then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
>stated, "[I] saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
>straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
>stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
>when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
>stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
>silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of sight
>over some trees.
>
>The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
>of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and left
>lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
>this location.
>
>The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
>approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
>rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
>area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
>one-half mile south of the main cabin.
>
>At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the Olympia
>Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
>collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles,
>broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
>degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
>Mercury.
>

[John Harlow]

C J Campbell wrote:
> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
> Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
control radar
services at the time of the collision."

What a shame.

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

The raw radar returns (tapes) had them both at approx. 3500 msl.
As I recall, the weather was fairly decent that day (I was up/
flying in the general vicinity that day).

Bela P. Havasreti

>"Karl Treier" > wrote in message
...
>> OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing that
>> the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch down.
>
>It appears that both planes were below 3000' AGL. Although Tenino is at
>about 300' the surrounding terrain pokes up over 1000.' It is a favorite
>area for instructors to demonstrate to students how rising terrain can meet
>lowering clouds, since such conditions can be found there very frequently.
>In fact, that is where my instructor taught me about CFIT when I was a
>student. Reading the accident report it appears that both planes may have
>had their altitude restricted by low clouds, which is pretty much a normal
>state of affairs around here. The report notes that neither pilot was using
>flight following. It does not say that flight following might well have not
>been available in that area and that altitude. Radio reception out there is
>spotty at best. I almost always lose both radio and radar contact somewhere
>in the area south of SCOOT, even though I am flying a published IFR approach
>and on an IFR flight plan.
>
>The other thing is that from that area north there is a lot of flight
>training going on, with airplanes constantly maneuvering, climbing,
>descending, and practicing IFR maneuvers with one pilot under the hood. It
>is just inside the 15 DME arc for the VOR/DME approach into Olympia and near
>the final approach course and not all that far from the published holding
>pattern for the missed approaches into Olympia. There are likely to be two
>or three planes flying these approaches at any one time. Consequently there
>are so many airplanes flying at odd altitudes and odd directions that for
>all practical purposes the VFR altitude rules might as well not exist. For
>that matter, these have to be the most widely ignored regulations in the
>country, especially in the West.
>
>You have to keep a sharp eye out. Sometimes even that is not enough.
>
>I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
>comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die. That is what I have always
>been told. I guess in a 170, at least, that is not true. I would guess that
>the engine weighs about 270 lbs. with accessories and sits about 20 inches
>forward of the datum. He also lost the prop and part of the cowl. The 170 is
>a tailwheel airplane, so landing gear would be unaffected. (Now there is an
>interesting argument in favor of tailwheel airplanes -- if your engine falls
>off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
>weight might improve your glide significantly.
>
>He probably would not even have nosed over if he hadn't hit the trees and
>power line.
>

[Teacherjh]

>>
Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.

Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
consider mandatory) flying aid?
<<

I like to fly low, and that is often below radar coverage, so sometimes flight
following is not an option.

Jose

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

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>C J Campbell wrote:
>> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
>> Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
>"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
>control radar
>services at the time of the collision."
>
>What a shame.
>
>I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
>it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
>ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
>know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
>someone too foolish to fly with.
>
>Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
>consider mandatory) flying aid?
>

I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
flight following, etc.).

I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
straight to the intended airport.

I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
looking for other traffic.

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
aircraft were in contact with ATC.

Bela P. Havasreti

[John T]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get
> flight following as someone too foolish to fly with.
>
> Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what
> I consider mandatory) flying aid?

Wow. That's quite an indictment. I don't question your choice of
requesting flight following and I highly recommend the practice for cross
country flights (especially over less populated areas). However, I don't
see a particular problem with heading to airport, holding up a wet finger
and "going thattaway" just for the fun of it.

The shame here is that neither pilot did an effective job of "see and
avoid".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[kage]

The accident site is JUST at the border of where one would get a traffic
alert from the new Garmin TIS system.

Karl
N185KG

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> The raw radar returns (tapes) had them both at approx. 3500 msl.
> As I recall, the weather was fairly decent that day (I was up/
> flying in the general vicinity that day).
>
> Bela P. Havasreti
>
> >"Karl Treier" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> OK on that heading shouldn't you be at Even + 500' for VFR? Amazing
that
> >> the CG was not shifted aft so far as to make it impossible to pitch
down.
> >
> >It appears that both planes were below 3000' AGL. Although Tenino is at
> >about 300' the surrounding terrain pokes up over 1000.' It is a favorite
> >area for instructors to demonstrate to students how rising terrain can
meet
> >lowering clouds, since such conditions can be found there very
frequently.
> >In fact, that is where my instructor taught me about CFIT when I was a
> >student. Reading the accident report it appears that both planes may have
> >had their altitude restricted by low clouds, which is pretty much a
normal
> >state of affairs around here. The report notes that neither pilot was
using
> >flight following. It does not say that flight following might well have
not
> >been available in that area and that altitude. Radio reception out there
is
> >spotty at best. I almost always lose both radio and radar contact
somewhere
> >in the area south of SCOOT, even though I am flying a published IFR
approach
> >and on an IFR flight plan.
> >
> >The other thing is that from that area north there is a lot of flight
> >training going on, with airplanes constantly maneuvering, climbing,
> >descending, and practicing IFR maneuvers with one pilot under the hood.
It
> >is just inside the 15 DME arc for the VOR/DME approach into Olympia and
near
> >the final approach course and not all that far from the published holding
> >pattern for the missed approaches into Olympia. There are likely to be
two
> >or three planes flying these approaches at any one time. Consequently
there
> >are so many airplanes flying at odd altitudes and odd directions that for
> >all practical purposes the VFR altitude rules might as well not exist.
For
> >that matter, these have to be the most widely ignored regulations in the
> >country, especially in the West.
> >
> >You have to keep a sharp eye out. Sometimes even that is not enough.
> >
> >I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your
engine
> >comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die. That is what I have always
> >been told. I guess in a 170, at least, that is not true. I would guess
that
> >the engine weighs about 270 lbs. with accessories and sits about 20
inches
> >forward of the datum. He also lost the prop and part of the cowl. The 170
is
> >a tailwheel airplane, so landing gear would be unaffected. (Now there is
an
> >interesting argument in favor of tailwheel airplanes -- if your engine
falls
> >off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
> >weight might improve your glide significantly.
> >
> >He probably would not even have nosed over if he hadn't hit the trees and
> >power line.
> >
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
>
> The accident site is JUST at the border of where one would get a traffic
> alert from the new Garmin TIS system.
>

Eh? Why does the location make a difference?

[John T]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> How can this be?

Just goes to show: "Never stop flying the airplane." :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[TaxSrv]

"John Harlow" wrote:
> ...I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic
advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my
instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't
you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight
following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.
> ...

Then there's a lot foolish pilots around where I fly. I won't argue
against FF in really busy airspace in bad haze, but in general there's
no 100% assurance you'll get advisories on primary targets nor a
callout of a nonparticipant putting out inaccurate Mode C. The only
safe time to more than glance at a map is while IFR in solid. Of only
2 close calls I've ever had, one involved a military transport
Approach never called about; the other was with a CFI with both us
bozos staring at the panel and discussing same.

If you download the actual NTSB databases, a search on the mid-air
collision field will show, away from the traffic pattern, they are
rare events, and there's years where none have occurred. That's about
30 million flight hours annually.

Fred F.

[John Harlow]

> I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
> flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.

Thank you. In my opinion it is a safety feature as important as a weather
briefing.
>
> My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
> are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
> too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
> flight following, etc.).

My personal opinion is habitual use of ATC is not being adequately taught
these days. My instructors would announce us leaving the pattern then
essentially turn the radio off. With panicky government regulations, moron
pilots busting TFRs and increased air traffic, the need to communicate grows
every day. It is not a *substitute* for "see and avoid"; rather a
complement.

[Robert M. Gary]

Anyone who thinks this could never be them is probably fooling themselves.

-Robert

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
> that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
>
> NTSB Identification: SEA04FA083B
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Sunday, May 16, 2004 in Tenino, WA
> Aircraft: Cessna 210J, registration: N3329S
> Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
>
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
> Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
> completed.
>
> On May 16, 2004, approximately 2040 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 170B,
> N3510D, and a Cessna 210J, N3329S, collided in flight approximately five
> nautical miles southeast of Tenino, Washington. The Cessna 170B had departed
> Roseburg, Oregon, and was en route to the Wax Orchards Airport, Vashon
> Island, Washington. The Cessna 210J had departed Camas, Washington, and was
> en route to Paine Field, Everett, Washington. There was one occupant onboard
> each aircraft. The pilot of the Cessna 210J, a certificated commercial
> pilot, sustained fatal injuries while the certificated private pilot of the
> Cessna 170B sustained minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
> prevailed and both aircraft were operated under 14 CFR Part 91 regulations.
>
> According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both pilots received
> weather briefings but neither pilot filed a flight plan, and neither
> aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic control radar
> services at the time of the collision.
>
> The pilot of the Cessna 170B reported that he was level at 3,500 feet mean
> sea level and had just changed his heading from 350 degrees to 318 degrees.
> The pilot stated, "I was looking down at my map as part of this 'normal
> scan' that I do when the collision occurred." The pilot stated, "I never saw
> the other airplane." The pilot further stated that the aircraft pitched down
> and went into an uncommanded left turn, requiring him to stabilize the angle
> of bank by holding full right aileron. The pilot reported that he then
> realized that the engine had come off the airplane, but he was still able to
> maintain the nose down attitude and keep his speed up. The pilot further
> reported that he then attempted to move the elevator and rudder enough to
> see if they were responsive, which they were. The pilot stated that as the
> airplane continued in the left turn through a southerly heading to an
> easterly heading he saw what appeared to be parts of "something" falling out
> of the sky below him. The pilot said, "...that's when I thought I'd been hit
> by another airplane." The pilot reported that as he proceeded turning and
> losing altitude rapidly, he picked out a field where he thought he could
> land. The pilot said, "I moved the flap handle a little to see how much they
> moved, and when I saw they worked I decided to add some flap to reduce my
> speed as I approached the field." The pilot stated that he then applied
> right rudder to raise the left wing before "clipping" the tops of some trees
> and going through one power line wire which bordered the field on the south.
> The pilot stated that after the airplane impacted the ground and came to
> rest, he immediately exited the airplane and sought help at a nearby house.
> The aircraft had come to rest in an inverted position on a magnetic heading
> of 120 degrees. There was no post impact fire.
>
> A witness, who is also a private pilot and the owner of the property where
> the Cessna 210J came to rest, reported that while in his house he heard an
> airplane flying around, prompting him to go outside to see what it was. The
> witness stated that he looked up and thought he heard airplanes overhead,
> then saw the two accident aircraft coming together. The witness further
> stated, "[I] saw them about 5 to 8 seconds before they hit. Both were
> straight and level. Neither took evasive action in any way." The witness
> stated that one was heading north and the other one was heading northeast
> when he saw them hit and parts started coming at him. The witness further
> stated that after the parts hit the ground he looked up again and saw "the
> silver aircraft" gliding north without an engine before it went out of sight
> over some trees.
>
> The Cessna 170B's engine was located approximately one-half mile southwest
> of where the aircraft came to rest. The airplane's right cabin door and left
> lower cowling were found approximately three-quarters of a mile south of
> this location.
>
> The Cessna 210J's engine, propeller, and main cabin area were located
> approximately one-quarter of a mile south of where the Cessna 170B came to
> rest. The wing was located approximately 400 feet south of the main cabin
> area, and the airplane's tail section was discovered in a thick brush area
> one-half mile south of the main cabin.
>
> At 2031, a special aviation surface weather observation taken at the Olympia
> Airport, Olympia, Washington, located 11 nautical miles northwest of the
> collision reported wind 220 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles,
> broken clouds at 2,600 feet, overcast clouds at 4,900 feet, temperature 12
> degrees C, dew point 7 degrees C, and an altimeter of 30.03 inches of
> Mercury.

[CV]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>>off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
>>weight might improve your glide significantly.

No, less weight does not significantly improve glide
performance, it just shifts your best glide to a lower
speed range. (It will improve your glide downwind
though, and make it worse into wind)

More important however would be the aerodynamic shape of
whatever was left of the nose after having prop, engine and
part of the cowling fall off. It is not too bold a bet to
say the aerodynamic characteristics will have been clearly
worse after the damage than before, thus more drag and
worse glide.

CV

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:21:25 +0200, CV > wrote:

>Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>>off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
>>>weight might improve your glide significantly.
>
>No, less weight does not significantly improve glide
>performance, it just shifts your best glide to a lower
>speed range. (It will improve your glide downwind
>though, and make it worse into wind)
>
>More important however would be the aerodynamic shape of
>whatever was left of the nose after having prop, engine and
>part of the cowling fall off. It is not too bold a bet to
>say the aerodynamic characteristics will have been clearly
>worse after the damage than before, thus more drag and
>worse glide.
>
>CV

Please watch who you quote (I didn't write that....).

Bela P. Havasreti

[SD]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:


>I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
>just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
>by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
>other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>
>This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
>done exactly that.
>
Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
accidents.


Scott D

[Al Gerharter]

The only "successful" flights I have seen after an engine departs, involved
VERY steep bank angles until VERY near the ground. Both a/c (A T6 at Reno,
and a Swift in Idaho) came to rest close to the engine that had departed. I
assume the engine didn't glide very well.
Al Gerharter


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53...
> > Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing
> > that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
> This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to
maintain
> control of an engine-less plane.
>
> How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so
far
> aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys
were
> able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.
>
> How can this be?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:
>
> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>
> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
> done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Kevin Darling]

Bela P. Havasreti > wrote in message >...
> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

It's a great theory, but you only have half of see-and-avoid available
if one plane is approaching from your rear, and if they're flying into
the sun, they likely won't see you either.

Ever fly in the Northeast on a nice weekend? There are planes
everywhere. I had a Beech fly right under me from my rear quarter one
day... about 50' below. I doubt he saw me. Pretty unnerving.

Best, Kev

[Ash Wyllie]

Jay Honeck opined

>> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
>> that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

>This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to maintain
>control of an engine-less plane.

>How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
>aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
>able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

>How can this be?

AIrspeed. Given enough airsped a tail (or nose) heavy aircraft can fly. But
the feedback becomes positive instead of negative. If you slow down the tail
drops. More down elevator is needed increasing drag. Get too slow and you
cannot recover. Computers can handle the problem better than people. See late
model jet aircraft with relaxed stability.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[C J Campbell]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my
instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.
>

As I think I pointed out, flight following is not always available in this
area due to low altitudes and poor radar and radio coverage. Seattle
Approach is often too busy to handle flight following. Flight following is
no substitute for "see and avoid" anyway. We have too many things like
seaplanes and helicopters conducting operations everywhere around here to
rely on flight following. A great many airplanes have neither radios nor
transponders. The TFRs have made things worse. There are a number of pilots
around here who attempt to avoid airspace trouble by turning their
transponders off and refusing to talk to anyone. Some of them will fly in
IMC.

I have been listening to an ongoing debate about flight following among
instructors for some time. Some of these instructors think that flight
following actually hinders teaching pilots to see and avoid and they don't
think that students should be introduced to it until the second cross
country. These instructors don't seem particularly irrational to me. Most of
them are old flight instructors who also think that places like Tacoma Tower
rely too much on radar and not enough on looking out at the traffic. I don't
agree with their viewpoint necessarily but I can understand it quite well.
They do have a point.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Flight following is no substitute for "see and avoid" anyway.
<<

I'll second that and third that. I see =so= many new pilots unable to function
without the kind of reassurance that flight following, GPS, handheld navcomms,
and autopilots provide. They are afraid to fly without it, and are unable to
fly with just a chart, a window, and CAVU. As a result, they are also no
longer PILOT IN COMMAND, but PASSENGER IN LEFT SEAT.

It's nice to have traffic pointed out, and it's (sometimes) nice to get vectors
around a problem, but the more you do that, the more you rely on the guy on the
ground to fly the plane. It becomes an attitude, and is a Bad Thing.

If you can't fly CAVU with a chart and a compass, you should not be in the air.
If you don't think you can or should fly without the geegaws and the radios,
find an instructor who will teach you how - because when you KNOW you can do
it, flight following is no longer a crutch or substitute, but an aid.

Jose


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

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:07:19 -0600, SD <c o f l y i n g @ p c i s y s
d o t n e t> wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
>>just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
>>by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
>>other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>>
>>This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
>>done exactly that.
>>
>Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
>ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
>when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
>traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
>looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
>exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
>accidents.
>
>
>Scott D

Point taken... but if you have TCAS on board, were talking to ATC and
had your eyeballs peeled looking out the windows, and were still
struck by another aircraft, your number was simply up! 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:
>>
>> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
>> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
>> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
>> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>>
>> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
>> done exactly that.
>
>That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
>the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
>Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
>was way too late.
>
>George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
attempt at keeping people from running me down.

I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).

Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
controller point out traffice to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, raw return indicates

Bela P. Havasreti

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:
>>
>> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
>> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
>> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
>> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>>
>> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
>> done exactly that.
>
>That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
>the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
>Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
>was way too late.
>
>George Patterson
> None of us is as dumb as all of us.

You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
attempt at keeping people from running me down.

I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).

Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
controller point out traffic to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
miles, indicating (y) altitude, the controller ain't talking to him,
and you end up never seeing him anyway?

Bela P. Havasreti

[Cub Driver]

I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
about it. I once asked my instructor about this and didn't understand
the answer. Some time later I asked the question on this newgroup and
didn't understood those answers either.

Of course I am an X-ray aircraft. I assume that makes a difference,
and that I couldn't get Flight Following even in the unlikely event
that my Yaseu handheld could do the necessary transmitting.

Indeed, it makes me nervous that someone would post such a didactic
statement about the absolute necessity of Flight Following. I worry
that they are depending on ATC to keep them out of trouble while they
chat on the cell phone (or worse, on 128.8).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>It's nice to have traffic pointed out,

The first time I ever flew out of a towered field was while taking
stall-training at Chandler AZ. This was also the first time I used a
panel radio. It was awful, given that I needed three channels and I
had only the two (!) radios.

But apart from that, I hated it whenever the tower called out traffic.
I could never see it! Finally the instructor told me to say "XXX is
looking for the traffic" and to stop craning around. That helped.

I have a regular scan pattern, including the engine instruments, and I
hate to have it interrupted. Same with the preflight checks, which are
done by memory, including tactile.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Teacherjh]

>>
I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
about it.
<<

It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency (they are
listed on the charts and in the AF/D - in a pinch a tower can start you off)
and say something like "Boston Approach, November two four one Romeo Charlie,
twenty five miles northeast of Pawling VOR, level at six point five, request
flight following to Nantucket" If they are busy, they may wait a moment before
answering (if they are really busy just announch your call sign and wait before
you get into the long spiel). When they answer you they will say something
like "two four one Romeo Charlie, squawk 3721". Repeat the code back to them,
put it in the window, they will say "two four one Romeo Charlie, radar contact
thirty miles east northeast of Pawling" and you're in.

Then listen for and acknowledge their traffic calls, and their frequency
changes (you'll get a lot of them - maybe even at the start if you call the
"wrong" sector.) You may get an occasional vector around airspace, but
basically, navigation is still up to you, as is everything else you are
normally responsible for.

>>
But apart from that, I hated it whenever the tower called out traffic.
I could never see it! Finally the instructor told me to say "XXX is
looking for the traffic" and to stop craning around. That helped.
<<

I agree with the first bit. Unless you have already seen the traffic, it may
take a moment to find it. Acknowledge the call, but DO look for that traffic.
That's why it's called out to you. In your normal scan, pay particular
attention to the direction they indicate, and the areas around it (when they
say "three o'clock" it may be off by a bit, for many reasons).

The more you do this, the more comfortable you will get with radio procedures.
It will soon be second nature.

As for preflight checklists from memory, try a paper one as a reminder after
you are done - to ensure that you in fact did remember everything. It's easy
to forget stuff and not realize it. Memory is the second thing to go.

Jose


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

[G. Burkhart]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> I've never used Flight Following, and really wouldn't know how to go
> about it.
> <<
>
> It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency
(they are
> listed on the charts and in the AF/D - ...

But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
without a transponder? I've never tried asking for it since flying slant
X-ray.

[Teacherjh]

>>
But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
without a transponder?
<<

I haven't tried. However, by verifying the type and altitude of a primary
echo, it might be of use to controllers who are not too busy with other (IFR
for example) traffic. It's just as useful to be called out as traffic as it is
to have traffic called out. And you may still get good radar services if their
screen's not too cluttered.

Newps? Ron?

Jose

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G. Burkhart" > wrote in message
news:kiZxc.5044$2i5.1188@attbi_s52...
>
> But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
> without a transponder? I've never tried asking for it since flying slant
> X-ray.
>

While a transponder is not a prerequisite for flight following, it's
unlikely a rag and tube taildragger will present a usable radar target
without one. I fly an Aeronca 7AC myself, and also use a handheld
transceiver. While the receiver side works well, I can pick up the ATIS
thirty miles out and identify the guy that recorded it through the ignition
noise (unshielded), I have to be pretty much on top of the ATC receiver to
transmit effectively. Weak target + iffy communications = no flight
following.

[Dale]

In article >,
"John Harlow" > wrote:


> What a shame.
>
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.

The shame is thinking radar services will save you. Two weeks ago,
while getting traffic advisories from approach, I was climbing to
altitude. I had relaxed a little since I was above 3500' (the real kill
zone here is 2000 and below) and was enjoying the scenery. I looked low
on the left side to find that my 206 now appeared to be a biplane since
there was a wing sticking out on the left below me. It took a
nanosecond to realize what I was looking at...we were same direction and
the other airplane was within 10 feet of me. I broke hard up and right
expecting to feel/hear a collision. Once clear I rolled back and check
to find the other traffic continuing as if nothing had happened. I was
talking to approach, I have a permanently assigned code, the other
aircraft was a Katana so I'm sure he is Mode C equipped as well.
Approach never said a thing.

I fly skydivers. We have a letter of agreement with Approach that
assigns our airplanes specific transponder codes. The usual call is
I'll give them a call at 2000' or so and report on and altitude climbing
to. The service I get depends greatly on the controller. Some simply
acknowledge radar contact and that's the last I hear until I give the 1
minute warning for jumpers away. Others call traffic as if I am the
only airplane they are working....one guy even reports the jumpers once
they open...didn't realize approach radar was that good. Twice last
weekend before I had reported on the frequency the controller came on
and said "81Z you on?", I replied and he called closing traffic for
me...one of which would have been a little close for comfort (this
particular controller is one of two that are friggin' awesome!!).

Point is, the service you get depends greatly on the individual
controller. I've flown all over the country into small airports as well
as Class B areas. I usually use radar services if able, but certainly
don't depend on them and in some cases find it easier to do without.

--
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

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>
> Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
> one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
> that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
> aircraft were in contact with ATC.

The classic example:

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/78-09-25(PSA).asp

[Cub Driver]

On 10 Jun 2004 12:17:38 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>It's pretty straightforward. You call up on an appropriate frequency (they are
>listed on the charts and in the AF/D - in a pinch a tower can start you off)
>and say something like "Boston Approach, November two four one Romeo Charlie,
>twenty five miles northeast of Pawling VOR, level at six point five, request
>flight following to Nantucket" If they are busy, they may wait a moment before
>answering (if they are really busy just announch your call sign and wait before
>you get into the long spiel). When they answer you they will say something
>like "two four one Romeo Charlie, squawk 3721". Repeat the code back to them,
>put it in the window, they will say "two four one Romeo Charlie, radar contact
>thirty miles east northeast of Pawling" and you're in.

Thank you. I at least understand now why I never bothered with the
answers! I can't be heard at 25 miles, and I don't have a transponder.

I fear that flying will go down the same road as boating (if that
isn't a mixed metaphor). There's a very definite set of horn signals
for such tasks as raising a bridge. But starting about ten years ago,
you could circle around in front of the bridge for hours, blowing your
air horn, and nothing would happen. The bridge keepers were inside
their little house, playing cribbage with the radio turned up high.

Once nearly everybody had a radio (transceiver), it became unsafe or
at least terribly inconvenient to go sailing without one.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>I haven't tried. However, by verifying the type and altitude of a primary
>echo, it might be of use to controllers who are not too busy with other (IFR
>for example) traffic.

My house is under D airspace. Last summer I wanted to fly up the bay
to my dock, for the delectation of my granddaughters. So I flew
overhead at 2900 feet and asked the tower for permission to descend
through pattern altitude to 500 feet for a tour of the bay. Long
silence. Then: where was I? "Over Adams' Point and circling." Long
silence. Finally I got permission to descend, but I had a big
suspicion that the radar had never picked me up.

To compound things, once I was at 500 feet he could no longer hear me.
So I exited his airspace by flying at 500 feet up the bay, thanking
him profusely as I departed.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your engine
> comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die.

This was something we often discussed in our hangar lying sessions at
SPX. There was quite a bit of speculation that if you immediately
prevented the stall by pushing forward, you'd be able to survive the
loss of the engine. I guess this has been proven, at least for the
C170B.

> off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
> weight might improve your glide significantly.

It would be balanced by the fact the aerodynamically-shaped cowling has
gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
> aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
> able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

I suspect at nearly full forward elevator, the tail is producing upforce
(rather than the usual downforce) - it becomes a lifting surface. I
should imagine the aircraft would become extremely twitchy in pitch
though.

The tail on most light taildraggers can hold the aft fuselage up on the
ground with virtually no airspeed (many can do it whilst stationary
given sufficient propwash over the tail). Even our little C140 could
keep the tail up at low airspeed with two fat buggers in the cabin (who
are behind the main wheels), so the tail will generate a reasonable
amount of lift.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, John Harlow wrote:
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.

If I understand right, there is a fair bit of non-flat terrain in the
area the accident occurred. Flight following might simply be impossible.
For example, where I fly gliders, there's a small mountain between us
and the nearest radar facility (our equivalent of flight following is
Radar Information Service). It's only a 2000' mountain, but in the area
I'm towing gliders, you can't even get any radio contact until nearly
3000' MSL let alone radar service. Therefore I don't even bother to try,
instead I remain on the local gliding frequency.

Flight following is fine, but even in small countries often there are
regions where terrain/lack of radar facilities make it impossible.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <kiZxc.5044$2i5.1188@attbi_s52>, G. Burkhart wrote:
> But Dan said he's Slant X-ray. Is it possible (or worth it) to get FF
> without a transponder? I've never tried asking for it since flying slant
> X-ray.

It's interesting to see the different approaches of different parts of
the world; we essentially have three different types of 'flight
followingy type' services you can just call for and ask:

- Radar Advisory Service: Generally used when flying in poor visibility
or IMC in class G airspace (over most of the British Isles, this goes
up to FL245). If you ask for RAS, ATC will advise headings for traffic
avoidance.
- Radar Information Service. Pretty much the equivalent of flight
following. ATC advises you of traffic and you choose what to do.
- Flight information service. A bit less than RIS, you'll be advised of
general things happening in your area. You don't need radar contact or
a transponder, ATC just needs a general clue about where you are.

FIS sounds a bit useless at first, but when you're crossing the Irish
Sea (all cross country flights where I live involve at least 30nm over
open water) I consider it essential that someone knows where I am in
case the chips go down and I have to make an unpleasantly wet landing
somewhere. If I'm already in radio contact with someone who knows my
general location, it means much less radio chatter in the mayday call!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[TaxSrv]

> ...But always remember
> that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
> aircraft were in contact with ATC.
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

I can't agree with "plenty", if you mean radar advisories, nor are
mid-airs in cruise other than a rare event. From NTSB data,
2001-2003, there were 25 mid-airs, most in the traffic pattern,
generally at nontowered fields.

Of the 12 occurring in "cruise" with a broad definition, 5 involved at
least one plane engaged in dual flight instruction; 4 involved
collision between jump planes, ag planes, fire tankers, or formation
flight. That leaves 3 -- avg 1 per year -- of the type we're
discussing. In only one case were the aircraft talking to ATC, and
occurred just after they both initiated contact and one pilot had
trouble doing so, with some unintelligible transmissions and faulty
Mode C under discussion. IOW, likely diverted attention just as in
the case of the fire tankers or pilots receiving dual. In fact, the
report hints the other pilot may have been distracted also, trying to
get a word in edgewise to a controller working two positions, several
approaches, and an unreadable guy with a bad xponder.

Another post suggested there's times you may be safer without trying
to get radar advisories, and this incident seems an example of just
such a time.

Fred F.

[Dave S]

John...

I SOMEWHAT agree with you... I CHOOSE to use flight following the
majority of the time when I get airborne, especially anything that is
more than local touch and go pattern work... and I agree that radar
services are a wonderful aid: They have alerted me to 2 POTENTIAL Near
Mid Air situations well before I could have seen the aircraft in
question (merging targets, same altitude, I requested suggested vectors
in both situations). BUT, VFR radar services are on a time and workload
permitting basis. Just because they(ATC)are talking to me doesnt mean
they will call ALL pertinent traffic. There have been many times that
I've seen traffic they(ATC)later called or didnt call at all.

I do believe the use of Radar Services is under-taught and
under-utilized. I can attest to my primary flying partner not doing it
out of laziness but out of discomfort: He just doesnt feel comfortable
with ATC. He flys solely out of uncontrolled strips, and got his ticket
10 years ago, sat out for 8 years, then has just recently returned to
flying. He's a passable pilot but he's intimidated by ATC. Hardly lazy.

My first instructor introduced me to flight following on my first flight
with him. He was just a private pilot, and future brother-in-law at the
time when we took a long XC to visit kin and so it was something I
became very comfortable and proficient with as we did
"pre-instructional" flying.

I agree that many instructors dont seem to emphasize flight following. I
have taken many a newly minted PP or even other students along for
"flying junkie jaunts" and my use of radar services has been their first
exposure to the service. Its a wonderful tool, but I would have to agree
with others: "mandatory" is just an opinion, and one has to be careful
not to become overly dependent on an "as able" service to provide
separation for them.

Blue Skies,
Dave


John Harlow wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
>>Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
>
> "...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
> control radar
> services at the time of the collision."
>
> What a shame.
>
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.
>
> Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
> consider mandatory) flying aid?
>
>

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:45:51 -0400, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

>> ...But always remember
>> that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
>> aircraft were in contact with ATC.
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>
>I can't agree with "plenty", if you mean radar advisories, nor are
>mid-airs in cruise other than a rare event. From NTSB data,
>2001-2003, there were 25 mid-airs, most in the traffic pattern,
>generally at nontowered fields.
>
>Of the 12 occurring in "cruise" with a broad definition, 5 involved at
>least one plane engaged in dual flight instruction; 4 involved
>collision between jump planes, ag planes, fire tankers, or formation
>flight. That leaves 3 -- avg 1 per year -- of the type we're
>discussing. In only one case were the aircraft talking to ATC, and
>occurred just after they both initiated contact and one pilot had
>trouble doing so, with some unintelligible transmissions and faulty
>Mode C under discussion. IOW, likely diverted attention just as in
>the case of the fire tankers or pilots receiving dual. In fact, the
>report hints the other pilot may have been distracted also, trying to
>get a word in edgewise to a controller working two positions, several
>approaches, and an unreadable guy with a bad xponder.
>
>Another post suggested there's times you may be safer without trying
>to get radar advisories, and this incident seems an example of just
>such a time.
>
>Fred F.

1 per year times how many years the NTSB has been keeping
track = plenty to me....

Bela P. Havasreti

[Teacherjh]

>>
Thank you. I at least understand now why I never bothered with the
answers! I can't be heard at 25 miles, and I don't have a transponder.
<<

Actually, when I responded, I had taken "X-ray" to be "expermental" and not "no
transponder".

No transponder, not much of a radio --> no flight following. Nothing wrong
with that, I fly a lot without FF too.

Jose

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

[C J Campbell]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> > I have always been told that it is impossible to pitch down if your
engine
> > comes off. You will pitch up, stall, and die.
>
> This was something we often discussed in our hangar lying sessions at
> SPX. There was quite a bit of speculation that if you immediately
> prevented the stall by pushing forward, you'd be able to survive the
> loss of the engine. I guess this has been proven, at least for the
> C170B.
>
> > off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
> > weight might improve your glide significantly.
>
> It would be balanced by the fact the aerodynamically-shaped cowling has
> gone, and has been replaced by a decidedly un-aerodynamic flat firewall.
>

The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.

[Teacherjh]

>>
The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that prop
that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.
<<

Not if the engine is gone too.

Jose

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

[PaulH]

>
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.
>
> Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
> consider mandatory) flying aid?

The facts are that: 1) you can't always get FF when you need it most
and 2) as many posters have pointed out, airplanes are very difficult
to see, especially behind you.

I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
airport every 5 miles. This has been a major motivation for me to get
my IFR rating, which I use rain or shine. Even at that, I see maybe
half of the conflicts called to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I fly in Chicago and have often used FF when available. But the most
> common scenario is that the FF is abruptly terminated when I get close
> to the Class C veil, which is when I most need it with a reliever
> airport every 5 miles.
>

I believe you mean "Mode C veil", there is no "Class C veil".

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> The aerodynamic shaped cowling means little in a Cessna. You have that
prop
> that is still spinning and creating as much drag as disk that size.
> <<
>
> Not if the engine is gone too.
>

No, but it remains an open question: which has more drag: an empty firewall
with no engine or prop, or a 'streamlined' cowling with an unpowered
spinning prop in front of it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, but it remains an open question: which has more drag: an empty
firewall
> with no engine or prop, or a 'streamlined' cowling with an unpowered
> spinning prop in front of it?
>

Who gives a **** about drag after the engine falls off?

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:28 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>FIS sounds a bit useless at first,

Sounds very sensible to me!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Jeff]

how much do you fly?
I use flight following all the time, I have had traffic called out to me that I
never saw. Its hard to see a plane coming head on, its easier to see them when
they are off to the side a bit.

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
> > wrote:
>
> >C J Campbell wrote:
> >> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
> >> Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
> >
> >"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
> >control radar
> >services at the time of the collision."
> >
> >What a shame.
> >
> >I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> >it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> >ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> >know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> >someone too foolish to fly with.
> >
> >Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
> >consider mandatory) flying aid?
> >
>
> I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
> flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.
>
> My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
> are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
> too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
> flight following, etc.).
>
> I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
> altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
> 5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
> descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
> straight to the intended airport.
>
> I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
> their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
> a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
> looking for other traffic.
>
> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>
> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
> done exactly that.
>
> Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
> one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
> that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
> aircraft were in contact with ATC.
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

[Jeff]

a few weeks ago on a trip back from Phoenix to Las Vegas, just before Kingman,az, center
called out to me a target that just departed kingman at my 12 o'clock climbing, not
talking to him, I asked for vectors around him and when I did see him, he turned out to
be a flight of 2 mooney's, which I reported back to center. They only say one plane when
there was actually 2 of them.

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:05:54 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
> >> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
> >> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
> >> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
> >>
> >> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
> >> done exactly that.
> >
> >That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
> >the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
> >Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
> >was way too late.
> >
> >George Patterson
> > None of us is as dumb as all of us.
>
> You're right George.... but on that note, I actually do regularly
> lift either wing and look as far back as I can (I own a 170) in an
> attempt at keeping people from running me down.
>
> I admit my "vigilance" is a fairly recent thing (I was part of the
> recovery crew on the C-210 / C-170 mid-air).
>
> Another thought I had on this flight following thing is... how many
> times have you been receiving advisories, only to have the
> controller point out traffic to you, your (x) o-clock, so many
> miles, indicating (y) altitude, the controller ain't talking to him,
> and you end up never seeing him anyway?
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

[Jeff]

speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ), while over
deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane just off
below us, he is climbing, he is right under us and climbing", she was getting
all excited now, I was like, where is he, she goes right below us, so I make a
hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us and she was like no, I just
thought you wanted to know that he was down there, he is gone now.
I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.

the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right under
us.

John Harlow wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
> > Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
> > Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>
> "...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
> control radar
> services at the time of the collision."
>
> What a shame.
>
> I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
> it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
> ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
> know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
> someone too foolish to fly with.
>
> Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
> consider mandatory) flying aid?

[Jack]

Jeff wrote:

> speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ), while over
> deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife)...she was getting
> all excited...so I make a hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us, and
> she was like no, I just thought you wanted to know that he was down there,
> he is gone now.
> I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.
>
> the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right under
> us.

Maybe that's why "TCAS units" need to talk to one another, and why
specific training, plus experience, is required to deal properly
with their warnings.



Jack

[S Green]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ),
while over
> deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane
just off
> below us, he is climbing, he is right under us and climbing", she was
getting
> all excited now, I was like, where is he, she goes right below us, so I
make a
> hard turn and ask her if he was going to hit us and she was like no, I
just
> thought you wanted to know that he was down there, he is gone now.
> I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.
>
> the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up right
under
> us.
>

Nothing worse than getting reports that are no help and just increase your
anxiety level.

lying in the South Midlands near Oxford UK, I was about to call up RAF Brize
Norton for the lowest level service, Flight Information. The controller was
telling another pilot first to contact somewhere else as he was too busy
(the other pilot said that he was told by the other place to contact BN
because they were too busy) and that he only had secondary radar so and
traffic without a transponder was not on his screen.

As we had no transponder decided that I would not add to the work load but
it was very busy today as we all crammed in under class A airspace with a
base at FL45 dropping to 2500ft within 15 miles.

you lucky sods!

sg

[Judah]

Jack > wrote in
gy.com:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> speaking of mid-air's, thursday while flying into phoenix area (FFZ),
>> while over deer valley airport, my TCAS went off (the wife)...she was
>> getting all excited...so I make a hard turn and ask her if he was
>> going to hit us, and
> > she was like no, I just thought you wanted to know that he was down
> > there, he is gone now.
>> I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now
>> on.
>>
>> the way she was saying he was below us I thought he was climbing up
>> right under us.
>
> Maybe that's why "TCAS units" need to talk to one another, and why
> specific training, plus experience, is required to deal properly
> with their warnings.

Me and my TCAS constantly have trouble communicating. I am thinking of
trading her in for a newer model, but am concerned that this may be just
too expensive to be worthwhile. Also I am somewhat concerned that I might
permanently damage the two dependent systems that we have.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> Me and my TCAS constantly have trouble communicating.

Me and mine have no trouble communicating. The problem is to get her to stop. :-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>>
>> Me and my TCAS constantly have trouble communicating.
>
> Me and mine have no trouble communicating. The problem is to get her to
> stop. :-)

I like how mine communicates.

My problem is that mine is working to be upgraded to "pilot". I don't want
to be a TCAS!

- Andrew

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:35:40 -0700, Jeff > wrote:

200+ hours per year ('54 C-170B)

Bela P. Havasreti

>how much do you fly?
>I use flight following all the time, I have had traffic called out to me that I
>never saw. Its hard to see a plane coming head on, its easier to see them when
>they are off to the side a bit.
>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:48:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >C J Campbell wrote:
>> >> Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
>> >> Amazing that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:
>> >
>> >"...neither aircraft had requested or were receiving air route traffic
>> >control radar
>> >services at the time of the collision."
>> >
>> >What a shame.
>> >
>> >I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
>> >it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my instructors
>> >ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
>> >know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
>> >someone too foolish to fly with.
>> >
>> >Are there still instructors out there who still opt out of this (what I
>> >consider mandatory) flying aid?
>> >
>>
>> I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
>> flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.
>>
>> My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
>> are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
>> too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
>> flight following, etc.).
>>
>> I think there are a lot of pilots out there who climb to cruise
>> altitude, never "clearing" the airspace in front of them with gentle
>> 5-10 degree turns one way & then the other. Same thing with
>> descending from cruise altitude. They just lower the nose and drive
>> straight to the intended airport.
>>
>> I also think there are a lot of pilots out there who cruise along to
>> their destination, never lifting (or lowering, for you bottom wingers)
>> a wing & then the other while scanning the entire viewable horizon
>> looking for other traffic.
>>
>> I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
>> just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
>> by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
>> other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.
>>
>> This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
>> done exactly that.
>>
>> Of course, this mid-air could also have been avoided if at least
>> one pilot had been getting advisories. But always remember
>> that there are plenty of mid-air collisions on record where both
>> aircraft were in contact with ATC.
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti

[Morgans]

"Jeff" wrote

my TCAS went off (the wife), she was like "a plane just off
> below us, he is climbing,

+Snip+

> I almost threw her out of the airplane and told her to walk for now on.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Better to be warned, and not needed, then to be not warned and needed.

Educate some more, and go on with it. YMMV
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/8/2004

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Even our little C140 could
> keep the tail up at low airspeed with two fat buggers in the cabin (who
> are behind the main wheels), so the tail will generate a reasonable
> amount of lift.

I was looking at the tail of a friend's 170 last night. It's got a huge
elevator surface. By the way, he's just sold his 140.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> FIS sounds a bit useless at first

Especially if it's from something like London Information, who
don't have radar, and are maybe talking to 10% of the planes
out there...

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> how much do you fly?
> I use flight following all the time, I have had traffic called out to me
that I
> never saw. Its hard to see a plane coming head on, its easier to see them
when
> they are off to the side a bit.

I saw (and avoided, obviously) a biz-jet coming directly towards
me, reciprocal heading, at exactly the same altitude yesterday. It
was a few miles south of Hatfield and I was monitoring Essex radar
but not talking to them...guess the biz jet wasn't talking to them
either as I wasn't called out as traffic.

I pushed the stick down and descended about 200ft fairly
quickly. I only saw it was a biz-jet as it passed directly above.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
> Nothing worse than getting reports that are no help and just increase your
> anxiety level.
>
> lying in the South Midlands near Oxford UK, I was about to call up RAF
Brize
> Norton for the lowest level service, Flight Information. The controller
was
> telling another pilot first to contact somewhere else as he was too busy
> (the other pilot said that he was told by the other place to contact BN
> because they were too busy) and that he only had secondary radar so and
> traffic without a transponder was not on his screen.
>
> As we had no transponder decided that I would not add to the work load but
> it was very busy today as we all crammed in under class A airspace with a
> base at FL45 dropping to 2500ft within 15 miles.

Mmm yes. Probably the busiest GA day here in the UK so far
this year. You were up too eh? I was formation training over in
Essex (flying from North Weald). The entire light aircraft
population of the South East seemed to be up. As I was flying
over there passing Elstree I heard a plane take off from there
that I used to fly at Cardiff.

So many cool things going on from North Weald. On Saturday I
saw two Gnats, a Hunter and the only flying (out of 11 made) JP1
go off in formation. On Sunday I saw them come back. Talked to
a couple of the pilots. The Aerostars (Yak formation team) were
up and about both days too. Various other JPs were flying around.

Also met the UK dealer for Decathlons and the UK dealer for
PZLs.

Nice weather!

Paul

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:

>I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
>flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.
>
>My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
>are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
>too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
>flight following, etc.).

Bela, there is a columnist who writes a monthly article for AVWeb. He
is a traffic controller for the Atlanta area. His name is Don Brown
and you should read his column number 37. The title is VFR in a
Vacuum, and the blurb goes: "Have you been turned down lately when you
asked ATC for VFR advisories? Expect it to happen more and more often,
especially when you and other pilots don't file a correct flight plan
or use the proper phraseology. AVweb's Don Brown points out how the
impending controller shortage will reduce the additional services ATC
can provide."

So it appears that while requesting flight following is a good idea
for cross country flights, unless a lot of new controllers are brought
on line, it will be increasingly difficult for them to handle non IFR
requests.

Corky Scott

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:42:31 -0400,
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:
>
>>I'll try to be nice and say you are welcome to consider getting
>>flight following services "mandatory" whenever you fly.
>>
>>My personal opinion, is that primary see & avoid techniques
>>are not being adequately taught these days, and (perhaps?)
>>too much emphasis is put on relying on systems (radios,
>>flight following, etc.).
>
>Bela, there is a columnist who writes a monthly article for AVWeb. He
>is a traffic controller for the Atlanta area. His name is Don Brown
>and you should read his column number 37. The title is VFR in a
>Vacuum, and the blurb goes: "Have you been turned down lately when you
>asked ATC for VFR advisories? Expect it to happen more and more often,
>especially when you and other pilots don't file a correct flight plan
>or use the proper phraseology. AVweb's Don Brown points out how the
>impending controller shortage will reduce the additional services ATC
>can provide."

I think how you ask for flight following makes a world of difference.

I rarely file a flight plan in populated areas unless going IFR. OTOH
I will file if the weather if "Iffy", or I'm going to be flying over
relatively barren or rugged terrain...or the visibility is poor.

But as to flight following. I'm not so sure as the VFR flight plan
(which is a good idea) has as much to do with receiving flight
following as does how you ask for it.

I've found that a simple and relaxed request such as "MBS approach,
this is Debonair Eight Thirty Three Romeo out of Midland Barstow for
Muncie Indiana. I'd like flight following if you have time".

And example which the old timers on here have heard many times
already: A friend and I were both flying from 3BS to MIE. He left
about 20 minutes ahead of me and was flying at 8500 while I was at
6500.

I picked up flight following climbing out of 3BS and never had to
change the transponder until I shut down at MIE. I was handed off
from one approach to the next every time and to center a couple of
times.. My friend had to squawk 1200 and call the next approach
facility when leaving one and entering the next "every time".
>
>So it appears that while requesting flight following is a good idea
>for cross country flights, unless a lot of new controllers are brought
>on line, it will be increasingly difficult for them to handle non IFR
>requests.
>
Wait till you get a request something like: "If you have the time,
would you be willing to fly a practice PAR for us? We have a new
trainee who'd like to try one".

The difficult part is following the instructions when you can see they
are going to take you right through the localizer, or he's turning you
too soon. You really have to work to not make the appropriate
corrections. <:-))

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

>Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:09:28 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>I've found that a simple and relaxed request such as "MBS approach,
>this is Debonair Eight Thirty Three Romeo out of Midland Barstow for
>Muncie Indiana. I'd like flight following if you have time".

Well yes, except that I was taught to give more information than that
during the initial call in. Example: "Boston Center, Cessna 123 Alpha
is departing Lebanon direct to Glenn's Fall's, climbing through 3,000
for 6,500 and is now five miles west of Lebanon. I'd like to have
flight following, if you have time." Or wait until I've reached
cruising altitude and call in at that height.

The first time I tried to contact Center during a dual cross country,
the instructor spelled out what he expected me to say and allowed me
to run it through in my mind for a few minutes before I keyed the
mike. Screwed it up anyway, but Center was patient with me.

What I've noticed is that even with practice, it's not easy to fly the
airplane, write down the requested frequency changes as I get
handoff's to be sure I got it right, and respond quickly on the radio
all at the same time. While I'm writing, Center is asking me to
aknowledge the frequency change.

Now that I know what's expected of me, I can of course look up the
frequencies and write them down in sequence during flight planning and
just check it off when the time comes, I suppose.

Corky Scott