Collision alert!

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

"Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"

Needless to say, I doubled my scan to see if the voice on the radio was
talking to me. I didn't see anything but continue to scan until I heard
more. I had never heard this before, so I was curious as to the situation
in which some poor pilot had found himself.

Having spent most of my brief flying life in '80K, I was relieved to hear
the voice come back with, "'95X, collision alert! NORDOR traffic at 11 to
12 'o clock, traveling west bound, at 3600 feet! You have traffic at
your 11 to 12 'o clock and we do not have radio contact!" It only took
some fraction of a second to recall that I was, in fact, in '95X; a plane
I had only flown three times before. It was also at this time I finally
spotted the other plane. Sure enough, he's at my altitude and we were
converging to a single point in space; me south bound and him west bound.

The flight had started some 20 minutes or so earlier from KDTO. This
flight was my madian flight into class bravo as a private pilot. My wife
and youngest son were both on board. Both of which are fairly new to
flying in spam cans. Needless to say I carried a little trepidation
flying into class bravo, knowing full well high expectations follow such a
privilege. The trepidation came from both the lack of experience on my
part but also the desire to not have my family experience any loss of
confidence in their pilot; in the event I stumble handling the demands of
class bravo.

I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170.
Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no
joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
my passengers.

"Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"

Having finally spotted the aircraft and realizing I was not flying '80K,
whos callsign had become second nature to me, I replied back on the radio.
We still had some time to react without acting rashly. After all, I
didn't want to upset the "cargo".

"95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event
other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.
"Your prerogative." I started to climb with full throttle and even
traded some airspeed for altitude. "95X, climbing to 4500", was my reply.
Had I to do it over again, I would would have descended. As I climed, the
nose obscured the view of the other aircraft. Not wanting to worsen
things with confusing signals (climbing...no wait...descending), I
decided to stick with my climb.

As I leveled off, it became clear the other aircraft had decided to climb
too. Needless to say, when I lowered the nose, I wasn't pleased to see
the other aircraft had followed me up to 4500 feet. In fact, now, we were
really getting close and I was starting to get a little concerned. We
were still converging and the other aircraft was noticeably larger now.
Uncomfortably larger now.

This time, I did not bother with the radio. I decided I would alter my
course to pass behind the other aircraft. Simple solution. Only, as soon
as I finished rolling into my new course, the other aircraft started to
turn toward us. I mean straight, head-on, same altitude, toward us! Now,
once again, I was very surprised. Without delay, I altered course once
again. This time, altering course to the right via a 20-25 degree bank.
I figured, if need be, I still had time to sharpen the bank angle.
Surely this guy has seen us and he'll do the same.

At this point, we're less than a mile away and he's still flying head on.
Just as I start to push forward to dive and begin a steep turn, the other
plane finally begins his turn to his right. I shallow my turn just
slightly so I can maintain visual contact as long as possible. I'd
estimate at our closest point, we were less than half mile away. Once I
lost sight of him behind me, I resumed my assigned course. "95X,
descending to 3500. Can you confirm the NORDO's position? He's flying very
erratic and I no longer have visual."

"95X, we have him at your six. He is following you to 3500." Needless to
say, I'm now wondering if this guy is trying to commit suicide with an air
to air. Almost a full minute later (well, I'm sure it wasn't...but
seemed like...) and glued to the radio, "95X, the plane has resume his
course to the west. He is no longer on your six."

The rest of the flight went like clock work. The hand-offs to Waco
Approach, Houston Approach, and finally KDWH were both painless and
professional by all parties involved. Even the landing went well.
Unfortunately, because of the bank angles, and angles of aircraft in the
turns, we never were able to get the tail number of the idiot flying
NORDO, in class bravo.

I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down
and hold him accountable.


Greg

[Emily[_1_]]

Greg Copeland wrote:
<snip>
>
> I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down
> and hold him accountable.

You never know. I knew a guy in college who blundered right through
Indy's airspace, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was even IN an
airplane. Approach watched him land at UMP then called the FBO on the
field and told them to tell the next guy to walk in to call them. So
yeah, sometimes they do.

[Ron Natalie]

Greg Copeland:
> I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
> Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170.
> Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact" or "no
> joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
> heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
> my passengers.

The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT"
"Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive
to effective communcations.


>
> This time, I did not bother with the radio.

Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's
Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual
conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services
you are receiving from ATC.

[Peter R.]

Greg Copeland > wrote:

> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"

The AIM has a section on reporting near mid-air collisions. Would this
incident qualify?

--
Peter

[Emily[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"
>
> The AIM has a section on reporting near mid-air collisions. Would this
> incident qualify?
>
He could always fill out a ASRS form...

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:02:06 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote in >:

>I was relieved to hear the voice come back with, "'95X, collision alert!
>NORDOR traffic at 11 to 12 'o clock, traveling west bound, at 3600 feet!
>
>I finally spotted the other plane. Sure enough, he's at my altitude and we were
>converging to a single point in space; me south bound and him west bound.

If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
right-of-way.

>The flight had started some 20 minutes or so earlier from KDTO.

KDTO elevation: 642 ft.

>I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
>Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of 170.
>
>"95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event
>other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.
>"Your prerogative."

Of course the Pilot In Command has not only the prerogative, but the
responsibility to avoid the conflicting traffic in the way he feels is
safest; don't expect ATC to assume that responsibility.

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-6
3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative
to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.

However, FAA Order 7110.65 does instruct controllers to offer a course
of action:

b. Aircraft Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert.
Immediately issue/initiate an alert to an aircraft if you
are aware of another aircraft at an altitude which you
believe places them in unsafe proximity. If feasible,
offer the pilot an alternate course of action.

>I started to climb with full throttle and even
>traded some airspeed for altitude. "95X, climbing to 4500", was my reply.
>Had I to do it over again, I would would have descended. As I climed, the
>nose obscured the view of the other aircraft. Not wanting to worsen
>things with confusing signals (climbing...no wait...descending), I
>decided to stick with my climb.
>
>As I leveled off, it became clear the other aircraft had decided to climb
>too. Needless to say, when I lowered the nose, I wasn't pleased to see
>the other aircraft had followed me up to 4500 feet. In fact, now, we were
>really getting close and I was starting to get a little concerned.

4,500' would be an appropriate altitude for a westbound VFR aircraft.

>This time, I did not bother with the radio. I decided I would alter my
>course to pass behind the other aircraft.

So you made a turn to the left toward the conflicting traffic.

>Simple solution. Only, as soon
>as I finished rolling into my new course, the other aircraft started to
>turn toward us. I mean straight, head-on, same altitude, toward us! Now,
>once again, I was very surprised. Without delay, I altered course once
>again. This time, altering course to the right via a 20-25 degree bank.
>I figured, if need be, I still had time to sharpen the bank angle.
>Surely this guy has seen us and he'll do the same.

That would be in compliance with FAR Sec. 91.115 (c):


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/2EA99FD06D59A9BC852566CF00614DEA?OpenDocument
c) Approaching head-on. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a
vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall alter
its course to the right to keep well clear.

>At this point, we're less than a mile away and he's still flying head on.
>Just as I start to push forward to dive and begin a steep turn, the other
>plane finally begins his turn to his right.

The other pilot must have finally spotted you wing-up.

>I shallow my turn just
>slightly so I can maintain visual contact as long as possible. I'd
>estimate at our closest point, we were less than half mile away. Once I
>lost sight of him behind me, I resumed my assigned course. "95X,
>descending to 3500. Can you confirm the NORDO's position? He's flying very
>erratic and I no longer have visual."
>
>"95X, we have him at your six. He is following you to 3500."
>"95X, the plane has resume his course to the west. He is no longer on your six."
>
>I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot down
>and hold him accountable.

What do you feel the other pilot did wrong?

Did you have your landing lights lit?

Operation Lights On
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-23
4-3-23. Use of Aircraft Lights
. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights
On, to enhance the see-and-avoid concept. Pilots are encouraged to
turn on their landing lights during takeoff; i.e., either after
takeoff clearance has been received or when beginning takeoff
roll. Pilots are further encouraged to turn on their landing
lights when operating below 10,000 feet, day or night, especially
when operating within 10 miles of any airport, or in conditions of
reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds may be
expected, i.e., coastal areas, lake areas, around refuse dumps,
etc. Although turning on aircraft lights does enhance the
see-and-avoid concept, pilots should not become complacent about
keeping a sharp lookout for other aircraft. Not all aircraft are
equipped with lights and some pilots may not have their lights
turned on. Aircraft manufacturer's recommendations for operation
of landing lights and electrical systems should be observed.


http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0706.html#7-6-3
7-6-3. Near Midair Collision Reporting

a. Purpose and Data Uses. The primary purpose of the Near Midair
Collision (NMAC) Reporting Program is to provide information for
use in enhancing the safety and efficiency of the National
Airspace System. Data obtained from NMAC reports are used by the
FAA to improve the quality of FAA services to users and to develop
programs, policies, and procedures aimed at the reduction of NMAC
occurrences. All NMAC reports are thoroughly investigated by
Flight Standards Facilities in coordination with Air Traffic
Facilities. Data from these investigations are transmitted to FAA
Headquarters in Washington, DC, where they are compiled and
analyzed, and where safety programs and recommendations are
developed.

b. Definition. A near midair collision is defined as an incident
associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a
possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less
than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a
pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard
existed between two or more aircraft.

c. Reporting Responsibility. It is the responsibility of the pilot
and/or flight crew to determine whether a near midair collision
did actually occur and, if so, to initiate a NMAC report. Be
specific, as ATC will not interpret a casual remark to mean that a
NMAC is being reported. The pilot should state "I wish to report a
near midair collision."

d. Where to File Reports. Pilots and/or flight crew members
involved in NMAC occurrences are urged to report each incident
immediately:

1. By radio or telephone to the nearest FAA ATC facility or FSS.

2. In writing, in lieu of the above, to the nearest Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO).

e. Items to be Reported.

1. Date and time (UTC) of incident.

2. Location of incident and altitude.

3. Identification and type of reporting aircraft, aircrew
destination, name and home base of pilot.

4. Identification and type of other aircraft, aircrew destination,
name and home base of pilot.

5. Type of flight plans; station altimeter setting used.

6. Detailed weather conditions at altitude or flight level.

7. Approximate courses of both aircraft: indicate if one or both
aircraft were climbing or descending.

8. Reported separation in distance at first sighting, proximity at
closest point horizontally and vertically, and length of time in
sight prior to evasive action.

9. Degree of evasive action taken, if any (from both aircraft, if
possible).

10. Injuries, if any.

f. Investigation. The FSDO in whose area the incident occurred is
responsible for the investigation and reporting of NMACs.

g. Existing radar, communication, and weather data will be
examined in the conduct of the investigation. When possible, all
cockpit crew members will be interviewed regarding factors
involving the NMAC incident. Air traffic controllers will be
interviewed in cases where one or more of the involved aircraft
was provided ATC service. Both flight and ATC procedures will be
evaluated. When the investigation reveals a violation of an FAA
regulation, enforcement action will be pursued.

[Alan Gerber]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
> right-of-way.

That doesn't sound right, er, correct. Wouldn't the aircraft on the right
have the right of way?

> 4,500' would be an appropriate altitude for a westbound VFR aircraft.

Yes, except the OP was at an altitude assigned by Departure in the Class B
airspace.

> What do you feel the other pilot did wrong?

Fly NORDO in Class B airspace?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Jim Logajan]

Alan Gerber > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
>> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
>> right-of-way.
>
> That doesn't sound right, er, correct. Wouldn't the aircraft on the
> right have the right of way?

That was my understanding too, and that's what the FARs say:

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

[tjd]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
> right-of-way.

that's backwards, the OP had the right of way:

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

>From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
right of way rules. Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
~20min, assuming ~40nm south of KDTO looks like you could be clear or
under the 4000MSL shelf at that point?

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending the guy, especially without
knowing all the details - just something to consider... And as someone
pointed out to me when I posted about my own near miss, the "miss" part
is WAY more important than "right" or "wrong".

todd.

[Dave S]

Alan Gerber wrote:

> Fly NORDO in Class B airspace?
>
> ... Alan
>

I'm guessing that Regional Approach "misused" the term to indicate
traffic that was NOT in radio contact with them. Wether the intruder HAD
a radio or not, the net effect was the same in this scenario.

Dave

[Jon Kraus]

Hey Emily... I'm based at UMP and think I remember the incident.... ;-)

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Emily wrote:

> Greg Copeland wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I can't help but wonder if they will bother to try to track the idiot
>> down
>> and hold him accountable.
>
>
> You never know. I knew a guy in college who blundered right through
> Indy's airspace, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was even IN an
> airplane. Approach watched him land at UMP then called the FBO on the
> field and told them to tell the next guy to walk in to call them. So
> yeah, sometimes they do.

[Jon Kraus]

What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Greg Copeland:
>
>> I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
>> Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of
>> 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual "contact"
>> or "no
>> joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
>> heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
>> my passengers.
>
>
> The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT"
> "Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive
> to effective communcations.
>
>
>>
>> This time, I did not bother with the radio.
>
>
> Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's
> Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual
> conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services
> you are receiving from ATC.

[Jon Kraus]

Correction... Negative Contact is only 5 syllables.... Should have had
my coffee first before replying.. ;-)

Jon Kraus wrote:

> What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
> seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> Greg Copeland:
>>
>>> I promptly jumped on the assigned heading and altitude given to me by
>>> Dallas Departure. I was flying along at 3500 feet on a heading of
>>> 170. Several traffic advisories had been given and the usual
>>> "contact" or "no
>>> joy" banter went back and forth. I was content and continued to stay on
>>> heading, hold my altitude, and work the radios. I was happy and so were
>>> my passengers.
>>
>>
>>
>> The proper terminology is "NEGATIVE CONTACT" or "TRAFFIC IN SIGHT"
>> "Contact" is wrong and so is "No Joy." Banter is not conducive
>> to effective communcations.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This time, I did not bother with the radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very good. Avigate, Navigate, Communicate (or the corollary: "It's
>> Bernoulli not Marconi that makes it fly). Your duty in visual
>> conditions is to avoid the other aircraft regardless of what services
>> you are receiving from ATC.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jon,

> What's incorrect about No Joy?
>

It's not standard phraseology. There are pilots out there who have not
served in the Royal Airforce in WW2 (with apologies to Bob Gardner).
They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.
Which lowers the overall safety of flight operations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Denny]

Greg, ya did good... Yup, the descending turn is the best way, so you
can keep the other plane in sight... Other than that the only
suggestion I can make is to stop worrying about the self loading cargo
(passengers) and if (when) you get another converging situation
maneuver decisively to get him off your nose... Don't waste time
talking to ATC until you have it under control... Don't worry about
the controller... Your PIC responsibility is take the evasive maneuvers
needed, NOW... You can listen to the guy drinking coffee in an
air-conditioned cab, whine about all his problems later...

cheers ... denny

[Ron Natalie]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
> seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.
>
Because it's not in the standard phraseology that is designated by the
AIM and the ATC Handbook as conveying the information. "I have
Contact" is more of an issue because it almost sounds like the
proper phraseology for the OPPOSITE meaning.

No Joy tends to get heavily used for many negative responses and
doesn't specifically mean that I have not located the conflicting
traffic.

NEGATIVE CONTACT specifically means that. It doesn't mean anything
else.

> Negative Contact is only 5 syllables...

Syllable count is not the definition of communications clarity.
If it were all ATC communications would be abbreviated to single
words and mike clicks (don't get me started).

[[email protected]]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> > What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
> > seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.

Thank you to whoever pointed out that not all of us are well-versed in
military radio terminology! That's not part of private pilot training,
and while you and the controllers may understand what you're doing, that
excludes non-military pilots sharing the airspace.

I heard someone use the term "Tally Ho" not long ago ... are we all
supposed to know that means he has the traffic? are we supposed to be
impressed? "Traffic in sight" is one extra syllable (so what?), but
military and non-military understand that he sees it and no further
dialogue is required. Seems like a no-brainer.

[The Visitor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
> have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.

"no clue"?
I couldn't name one, or even imagine one.

Not that I am endorsing the phrase.

If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking."

John

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, tjd wrote:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
> trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
> corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
> right of way rules. Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
> ~20min, assuming ~40nm south of KDTO looks like you could be clear or
> under the 4000MSL shelf at that point?

I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."

I was not able to proceed directly into class B after take off as I had
to wait for clearance; despite initiating the request while still in my
initial climb on departure from KDTO. We were on the south side of
Dallas, well within class B. I was flying at the **assigned** altitude,
as indicated by the story. We were not under the 40000 shelf....I had
checked the GPS only moments before. We were in the 3000' shelf; squarely
placing both of us *within* class B's 3000' shelf. I just went back and
verified on my GPS we were *in* the 3000' shelf.

Based on the voice's tone on the radio, I did get the impression he was
not supposed to be there but that's hardly authorative. He did say he was
not squawking ("with no squawk"), which also makes me think he was not
suppose to be there. I couldn't remember exactly where in the dialog that
tidbit was offered, so I left it out. My wife and son both clearly heard,
"with no squawk" too.

Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
flight. I had throttled back waiting for clearance. Shesh. I think some
may be over analyzing...a lot!

I also read several posts which seem to assert I yielded PIC authority. I
dumbfounded as to how anyone could come to that conclussion. The initial
sighting was by no means sure death in the next second. I did the
responsible thing by keeping the controller in the loop by ensuring I
didn't compound the problem with other traffic in the area. When time did
not allow for it, I didn't do it. I fail to understand how improving
situational awareness is a bad thing; contrary to the opinion asserted by
others here.


Greg

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:17:01 -0400, The Visitor wrote:

>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> They (and a lot of Americans, and the majority of foreign pilots) will
>> have no clue what you are talking about when you use phrases like that.
>
> "no clue"?
> I couldn't name one, or even imagine one.
>
> Not that I am endorsing the phrase.
>
> If the frequency is busy I just say, "Looking."
>
> John

Interesting. I hear it used just about every time I fly. I had no idea
people would hear common radio terminology and blissfully ignore it.

Just the same, point well taken.


Greg

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Alan Gerber
> wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
>> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
>> right-of-way.
>
>That doesn't sound right, er, correct. Wouldn't the aircraft on the right
>have the right of way?

Oops. Of course you are correct about the aircraft on the right
having the right of way.

>> 4,500' would be an appropriate altitude for a westbound VFR aircraft.
>
>Yes, except the OP was at an altitude assigned by Departure in the Class B
>airspace.

I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that both
aircraft were within Class B airspace at the time. His later follow
up post confirmed that fact.

>> What do you feel the other pilot did wrong?
>
>Fly NORDO in Class B airspace?
>
>... Alan

While operating within Class B airspace without an operative
transponder is possible (I've done it), I believe it is also possible
to operate NORDO if prior arrangements have been made or if radio
failure should occur while cleared in Class B airspace. So, while it
is likely the unidentified aircraft was in violation of regulations,
there does exist a possibility he was legally operating NORDO in Class
B airspace.

Thanks for your input.

[Larry Dighera]

On 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, "tjd" > wrote in
. com>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
>> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
>> right-of-way.
>
>that's backwards, the OP had the right of way:

Yes. As Alan Gerber > wrote in
>, it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
right of the NORDO aircraft. However that has nothing to do with the
hemispherical regulation.

>91.113 (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
>converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
>nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.
>
>>From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
>trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
>corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
>right of way rules.

Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
complying with right-of-way regulations.

>Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?

I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that they were
within Class B airspace at the time, but he confirmed that fact in a
follow up message. It is likely the NORDO aircraft was not operating
on a clearance in Class B airspace, but that fact has not been
conclusively established.

[Jose[_1_]]

> there does exist a possibility he was legally operating NORDO in Class
> B airspace.

I'd imagine that if he were legally operating NORDO in the Bravo, that
the controller would know about it. My impression from the story is
that it took the controller by surprise too.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
> complying with right-of-way regulations.

The first part of the rule regarding right-of-way, states you
should sea and avoid.

With the exception of overtaking from the rear and approaching
head-on, the rules don't state any particular behavior to take
to avoid, other than the aircraft without the right of way
shall manouver to pass well clear.

Unlike nautical rules, there's no concept of the privileged
vessel standing on (i.e., maintaining course and speed).
O

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:44:35 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, "tjd" > wrote in
> . com>:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> If he was less than 3,000' AGL, he was in compliance with the
>>> hemispherical regulation, and being on your left, he had the
>>> right-of-way.
>>
>>that's backwards, the OP had the right of way:
>
> Yes. As Alan Gerber > wrote in
> >, it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
> aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
> right of the NORDO aircraft. However that has nothing to do with the
> hemispherical regulation.
>
>>91.113 (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
>>converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
>>nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.
>>
>>>From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
>>trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
>>corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
>>right of way rules.
>
> Please explain how taking evasive action relieves the PIC from
> complying with right-of-way regulations.
>
>>Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
>
> I had failed to infer from Mr. Copeland's narrative, that they were
> within Class B airspace at the time, but he confirmed that fact in a
> follow up message. It is likely the NORDO aircraft was not operating
> on a clearance in Class B airspace, but that fact has not been
> conclusively established.

I would say it is far, far, far more likely he did not have clearance.
Weather was in the area. As were lots of planes. They were busy. It
took me a while to get clearance to simply enter. On top of that, his
flight path would have him traveling past the depature end of DFW. I have
a really hard time imagining them letting a NORDO, no squawking aircraft,
enter class B at this time when he could be flying under the shelf (<
3000) or gone south a little to be flying < 4000'. Especially in light of
the fact that denial for VFR, to enter class B, is not terribly uncommon.


Greg

[Jose[_1_]]

> it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
> aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
> right of the NORDO aircraft.

I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no?
And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how
did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:17:59 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote in >:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:09:51 -0700, tjd wrote:
>
>>
>> From the story, it sounds like both pilots saw each other and both were
>> trying to take evasive action, but they kept getting unlucky and making
>> corresponding maneuvers. So, it's not clear if the guy violated any
>> right of way rules. Was he definitely in class B without a clearance?
>> ~20min, assuming ~40nm south of KDTO looks like you could be clear or
>> under the 4000MSL shelf at that point?
>

[...]

>We were on the south side of Dallas, well within class B. I was flying at
>the **assigned** altitude, as indicated by the story. We were not under the
>40000 shelf....I had checked the GPS only moments before. We were in the
>3000' shelf; squarely placing both of us *within* class B's 3000' shelf. I
>just went back and verified on my GPS we were *in* the 3000' shelf.
>
>Based on the voice's tone on the radio, I did get the impression he was
>not supposed to be there but that's hardly authorative. He did say he was
>not squawking ("with no squawk"), which also makes me think he was not
>suppose to be there.

If the NORDO aircraft's transponder was not in operation, it begs the
question, how did ATC know its altitude? It is possible the
controller's "with no squawk" statement may have meant the NORDO
aircraft was not squawking an assigned beacon code, but 1200 or 7600,
or, more likely, it could have meant there was no beacon being
transmitted from the NORDO aircraft. ATC's statement is a bit
ambiguous.

>
>Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
>flight. [?] I had throttled back waiting for clearance.

It would have made the situation much clearer if you had definitely
stated that both aircraft were within Class B airspace.

>Shesh. I think some may be over analyzing...a lot!

How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
factors as possible, right?

>
>I also read several posts which seem to assert I yielded PIC authority.

That is your inference. That notion may have been implicit in my
citing the PIC's responsibility for controlling his flight, but ...

>I dumbfounded as to how anyone could come to that conclussion.

I did not mean to imply that you had actually "yielded PIC authority,"
but your statement:

Not wanting to compound the situation in the event other traffic
was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.

could be construed as expecting the controller to provide instructions
for you to evade the other aircraft.

While the section of FAA Order 7110.65 I cited does indicate that the
controller could provide such instructions as part of the alert, it is
the PIC who is in command of the flight. I think it was prudent of
you to query the controller for a suggestion for the reasons you
mention, but that query could also be construed as relinquishing some
PIC authority/responsiblity.

Please don't take this personal critizum. It was merely an attempt to
objectively scrutinize all the possibilities, and stands as an example
of how it might be viewd by an ALJ.

>The initial sighting was by no means sure death in the next second. I did the
>responsible thing by keeping the controller in the loop by ensuring I
>didn't compound the problem with other traffic in the area. When time did
>not allow for it, I didn't do it. I fail to understand how improving
>situational awareness is a bad thing; contrary to the opinion asserted by
>others here.

I don't know to which opinion you are referring, but I agree, quearing
the controller was a prudent thing to do at that time.

What I'm having trouble with is the controllers ability to accurately
determine the NORDO aircraft's altitude apparently from a primary
radar target.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:31:56 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> If the NORDO aircraft's transponder was not in operation, it begs the
> question, how did ATC know its altitude? It is possible the
> controller's "with no squawk" statement may have meant the NORDO
> aircraft was not squawking an assigned beacon code, but 1200 or 7600,
> or, more likely, it could have meant there was no beacon being
> transmitted from the NORDO aircraft. ATC's statement is a bit
> ambiguous.

Agreed.

>
>>
>>Would it make you feel better if I said it happened about 15-minutes into
>>flight. [?] I had throttled back waiting for clearance.
>
> It would have made the situation much clearer if you had definitely
> stated that both aircraft were within Class B airspace.

I thought it was implied as I lead in with the fact I was entering class
bravo. I guess not.

>
>>Shesh. I think some may be over analyzing...a lot!
>
> How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
> factors as possible, right?

You don't think it's over analyzing, trying to infer an aircraft position
based on a **very loose** time of travel ("some 20 minutes or so earlier")
while making many assumptions? In my book, not only is the time of travel
irrelivant to the story, attempting to infer an aircraft position based on
what is obviously a very imprecise estimate of time, most definately is
"over analyzing." Add to the fact this is after the fact, I fail to see
how post-analysis of irrelevant data while making broad assumptions is
anything but "over analyzing".

If you don't think so, we have very different definitions.

[snip]
> Please don't take this personal critizum. It was merely an attempt to
> objectively scrutinize all the possibilities, and stands as an example
> of how it might be viewd by an ALJ.
>

Fair enough.


Greg

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:26:35 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
>> aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
>> right of the NORDO aircraft.
>
>I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no?

Not at first when the NORDO aircraft was westbound and Mr. Copeland
was on a heading of 170 degrees.

> And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how
>did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on?
>

I suppose, if the aircraft is approaching from 90 degrees abeam, you
turn toward it so as to pass behind it.

Unfortunately, it appears that the NORDO PIC chose that moment to
change course turning toward Mr. Copeland. It was at that point, that
there was a head-on situation, if my analysis is correct.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:03:35 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote in >:

>> How is over analysis possible? The prudent pilot considers as many
>> factors as possible, right?
>
>You don't think it's over analyzing, trying to infer an aircraft position
>based on a **very loose** time of travel ("some 20 minutes or so earlier")
>while making many assumptions? In my book, not only is the time of travel
>irrelivant to the story, attempting to infer an aircraft position based on
>what is obviously a very imprecise estimate of time, most definately is
>"over analyzing." Add to the fact this is after the fact, I fail to see
>how post-analysis of irrelevant data while making broad assumptions is
>anything but "over analyzing".

Oh. That analysis. Being unfamiliar with the area, I didn't really
consider it. I see what you're getting at. Perhaps it was fostered
in desperation as a result of inadequate information contained in the
original story.

While many of the readers of this newsgroup are very casual in what
they write, it's easy to see, that such imprecise language and
omission of facts quickly leads to erroneous avenues of investigation
and ambiguity. (A general observation, not personal criticism)

[tjd]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
> to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
> continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
> not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
> head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."

Hi Greg, it was not my intent to offend you - just playing "what if"
with the information you provided. After your clarification it sounds
like this definitely took place in the class B but that was not clear
(at least to me) from your initial post. As far as what the other guy
was thinking, unfortunately we'll likely never know - but given he was
climbing and turning, it still sounds to me like he did see you. Given
the guy was apparently operating illegally in class B, there's
certainly reason to question his piloting skills, but the fact this
happened on class B has no real bearing on the subsequent events. The
other guy may have been completely unaware he was there (which is a
problem for the FAA to worry about), and VFR traffic advisories are
optional regardless.

Just to play devil's advocate, consider what the other guy might have
been thinking. He sees your plane, knows you have the right of way,
and climbs to 4500. He won't be able to see you any better in the
climb than you can see him, right? Then he turns to the right only to
see you've turned to the left. He waits a little bit to see what
you're going to do next, and after he sees you turn to the right he
also turns right. After the incident is over, maybe he thought his
initial course was underneath the class B shelf, but now that he's
diverted to the north and climbed he's inside it, so he turns
southbound and descends back to 3500.

Did it happen that way? I obviously don't know, but it sounds
possible. It's also possible the other guy was being a complete idiot,
but there's no way to know for sure. I don't think you did anything
wrong, but maybe the other guy didn't do anything wrong either, aside
from violating airspace. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out,
there's no sure-fire method for resolving the conflict even if both
parties are aware of it. And, as I said before, really the important
part is that the conflict did get resolved and everyone's still around
to debate the circumstances.

todd.

[tjd]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> You don't think it's over analyzing, trying to infer an aircraft position
> based on a **very loose** time of travel ("some 20 minutes or so earlier")
> while making many assumptions? In my book, not only is the time of travel

I wasn't trying to "over-analyze" anything - I read the story, spent 30
seconds looking at the DFW chart, and just thought I'd raise the
possibility. You later clarified that you were indeed still in the
class B, but also said the other guy would only have to have "gone
south a little" to be under the 4000' shelf.

I really think you're misinterpreting my intentions. I'm not trying to
be critical or poke holes in your account. I'm just trying to have a
constructive discussion about the incident, which I presume was what
you were looking for when you posted. You can certainly assume the
other guy was a complete idiot, but there may be other explanations,
and I think it's worth exploring them for a couple reasons. First,
without the other pilot's story there's no real way to know, and
second, understanding all the possibilities hopefully makes all of us
better pilots.

I'm a very new PP myself, and I'm honestly just trying to be helpful if
I can. I posted here about my "near miss" a little while back, where
some guy flew straight through the pattern opposite direction just as I
was turning final. My initial reaction was the same - "that idiot was
trying to kill me", but people pointed out that the guy was not
necessarily doing anything wrong (ill-advised, maybe). Ultimately,
that has made me a better pilot than if everyone had just agreed with
me.

todd.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:27:27 -0700, tjd wrote:

>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>> I seriously doubt he was "taking evasive action" until he started he turn
>> to the right. Unlike me, he had a window view of us. The fact that he
>> continued to climb into our path, in class B, with a window view, does
>> not indicate to me he was "evading" anything. The fact that he turned,
>> head on, after climbing, to me, does not indicate he was "evading."
>
> Hi Greg, it was not my intent to offend you - just playing "what if"

I wasn't offended. I was just pointing out non-factual information was
being used to paint a nicer picture for the other pilot. I firmly believe,
had you been there, your impression of the other other pilot would have
been, "what an idiot". Oddly, I've wondered if he was thinking the same
thing.

> with the information you provided. After your clarification it sounds
> like this definitely took place in the class B but that was not clear
> (at least to me) from your initial post. As far as what the other guy
> was thinking, unfortunately we'll likely never know - but given he was
> climbing and turning, it still sounds to me like he did see you. Given

I still believe he did not.

> the guy was apparently operating illegally in class B, there's

I believe that to be true but can not authoratively state it is fact.

[snip]
> Just to play devil's advocate, consider what the other guy might have
> been thinking. He sees your plane, knows you have the right of way, and
> climbs to 4500. He won't be able to see you any better in the climb
> than you can see him, right?

Incorrect. At this point, he is still west bound and has a window view of
me to his right. He initiated a climb immediately after I did (I
never saw his nose go up before I climbed) and maintained his west bound
path. This means he would have been able to watch me climb as he was
essentially climbing with me; as he still has a window view of me to his
right. His next action is to turn head on after I had already changed
course to fly behind him. That to me, indicates he never saw me. Or, we
can assume he did see me, which means he is an absolute idiot. That would
mean he saw me climb, climbed with me, saw me turn to pass behind him,
then purposely turned head on to once again be on an intercept course,
where he finally decided to turn to avoid collision.

Hopefully you can see, I was already painting the nicer picture for the
other pilot by assuming he simply hadn't seen me until we were both
turning right.

[snip]
> And, as I said before, really the important part is that
> the conflict did get resolved and everyone's still around to debate the
> circumstances.

Agreed!

Greg

[Alan Gerber]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
> Shesh. I think some
> may be over analyzing...a lot!

Welcome to Usenet.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Bob Fry]

I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
not standard phraseology either. But I appreciate the post with the
correct words; it's been so long since I've heard them used I'd
forgotton what they were.

What really irks me is the action TV shows (24, Unit) where they say
"I have a visual". Can't they just say "I see him/it/whatever"??

[[email protected]]

Is it just me that's having a sense of deja moo? Certainly feel I've
read such bull before...

Ramapriya


Greg Copeland wrote:
> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"
>
> Needless to say, I doubled my scan to see if the voice on the radio was
> talking to me. I didn't see anything but continue to scan until I heard
> more. I had never heard this before, so I was curious as to the situation
> in which some poor pilot had found himself.

[[email protected]]

Bob Fry wrote:
> I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
> not standard phraseology either.


Don't know whether it's standard phraseology but my bad = my mistake,
no other interpretation that I'm aware of :)

Ramapriya

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Jon Kraus wrote:
> > What's incorrect about No Joy? It is only two syllables instead of the
> > seven for Negative Contact and not considered "banter" at all.
> >
> Because it's not in the standard phraseology that is designated by the
> AIM and the ATC Handbook as conveying the information. "I have
> Contact" is more of an issue because it almost sounds like the
> proper phraseology for the OPPOSITE meaning.
>
> No Joy tends to get heavily used for many negative responses and
> doesn't specifically mean that I have not located the conflicting
> traffic.
>
> NEGATIVE CONTACT specifically means that. It doesn't mean anything
> else.

Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see
it, but am trying to).

--
Duncan

[Jose[_1_]]

> Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see
> it, but am trying to).

All the time.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Having finally spotted the aircraft and realizing I was not flying '80K,
> whos callsign had become second nature to me, I replied back on the radio.
> We still had some time to react without acting rashly. After all, I
> didn't want to upset the "cargo".
>
> "95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event
> other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.
> "Your prerogative." I started to climb with full throttle

At this point, how imminent was the threat? From the way you described
it, there was plenty of time. You made it to 4500 feet (with time to
spare); even at 1000 feet per minute, that's thirty seconds, and you
already see him. I'd've probably stayed at my altitued, said "traffic
in sight" and then maintained altitude, maneuvering to avoid him as
necessary. It might not have even been necessary.

If he was at 11 o'clock, and travelling at 90 degrees to you, you'd
probably pass behind with no further action on your part.

After climbing, finding him again at your altitude, turning, finding him
turning towards you, and turning again, you then say you're "less than a
mile away". Even half a mile, if you're watching, isn't all that close
(the Hudson river is only a mile wide).

It would seem to me that there was never an imminent threat; the
aircraft were too far away. A threat was developing, but once you had
him in sight it would not take such drastic action to avoid trading
paint (or pained expressions) with the other aircraft.

I suspect controllers will call out a collision alert further away,
because of the limited resolution of their screens (vs the High
Resolution Plexiglass Display most aircraft carry), and the time it
takes for any action they take to translate into aircraft movement.

As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar
histories for that airport.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On 16 Aug 2006 20:08:12 -0700, wrote:

>Bob Fry wrote:
>> I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
>> not standard phraseology either.
>
>
>Don't know whether it's standard phraseology but my bad = my mistake,
>no other interpretation that I'm aware of :)
>
Recent US colloquialism, though. Must have been a TV sitcom
catchphrase originally.

Don

[Thomas Borchert]

> are we supposed to be
> impressed?
>

That's the whole point of using these silly phrases, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> I couldn't name one, or even imagine one.

Well, I can. I'm German. I learned about the phrase the hard way.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon Kraus]

The phrase "my bad" originated in the movie Clueless (I think)



Don Tuite wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 20:08:12 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>>>I heard a controller once say "my bad", meaning his mistake, probably
>>>not standard phraseology either.
>>
>>
>>Don't know whether it's standard phraseology but my bad = my mistake,
>>no other interpretation that I'm aware of :)
>>
>
> Recent US colloquialism, though. Must have been a TV sitcom
> catchphrase originally.
>
> Don
>

[The Visitor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Well, I can. I'm German. I learned about the phrase the hard way.
>
>
Then you know.
So who is it that doesn't know?

Kidding, : )

[The Visitor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Well, I can. I'm German. I learned about the phrase the hard way.
>
>

Then you know.
So who is it that doesn't know?

Kidding, : )

Where was this that you first heard it, Europe? It is such a widely used
expression, it isn't even challenged. Not that I am endorsing it. I
couldn't use it myself. People would think I was just watching some war
movie or something.

I would think anybody hearing it for the first time, would hear the word
"no" in there and wouldn't think that meant the traffic was sighted,
doh, im mean "in sight".

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:46:06 -0700, ramapriya.d wrote:

> Is it just me that's having a sense of deja moo? Certainly feel I've
> read such bull before...
>

Troll alert!

Greg

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"deja moo" Is that the feeling you've seen the cow before?


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it just me that's having a sense of deja moo? Certainly feel I've
> read such bull before...
>
> Ramapriya
>
>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"
>>
>> Needless to say, I doubled my scan to see if the voice on the radio was
>> talking to me. I didn't see anything but continue to scan until I heard
>> more. I had never heard this before, so I was curious as to the
>> situation
>> in which some poor pilot had found himself.
>

[Bob Moore]

Greg Copeland wrote
> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"

Sure sound's like something that you wrote-up for Flying's
"I learned About Flying From That" column. A little too dramatic
don't you think?

I don't find "Collision Alert" in the Pilot/Controller Glossary,
are you sure that it didn't go something like this, "95X, Dallas
Departure, Traffic eleven o'clock, 2 miles, transponder indicates
3,500', turn left heading 150."? After all...this is copied from
the AIM:

"e. ATC Clearances and Separation. An ATC clearance is required to
enter and operate within Class B airspace. VFR pilots are provided
sequencing AND SEPARATION from other aircraft while operating within
Class B airspace."

ATC was required to provide separation services and the situation that
you describe should never occur. Of course ATC knew the other aircraft
was there by its transponder code...how else did it's altitude become
known?

From the "Pilot/Controller Glossary:
SAFETY ALERT- A safety alert issued by ATC to aircraft under their control
if ATC is aware the aircraft is at an altitude which, in the controller's
judgment, places the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions,
or other aircraft. The controller may discontinue the issuance of further
alerts if the pilot advises he/she is taking action to correct the
situation or has the other aircraft in sight.
b. Aircraft Conflict Alert- A safety alert issued by ATC to aircraft under
their control if ATC is aware of an aircraft that is not under their
control at an altitude which, in the controller's judgment, places both
aircraft in unsafe proximity to each other. With the alert, ATC will offer
the pilot an alternate course of action when feasible; e.g., "TRAFFIC
ALERT, advise you turn right heading zero niner zero or climb to eight
thousand immediately."



> "95X, we have him at your six. He is following you to 3500."
> Needless to say, I'm now wondering if this guy is trying to commit
> suicide with an air to air. Almost a full minute later (well, I'm
> sure it wasn't...but seemed like...) and glued to the radio, "95X, the
> plane has resume his course to the west. He is no longer on your
> six."

Been watching a little too much "Top Gun"? "At your six" geeze...only from
a wanna-be fighter pilot. Tom Cruise would be proud of you though.
ATC would have said something like this..."the unidentified traffic is now
at six o'clock, one mile and descending through xxxx feet. Just curious,
how did ATC know that he was "following you to 3,500"? And finally, ATC
would have said something like...95X, Dallas Departure, previously reported
traffic no longer a factor, fly heading 170, maintain 3,500.

Naw....Flying wouldn't have bought it either. :-)

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
CFII AGI
PanAm (retired)

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> Where was this that you first heard it, Europe?

No. It is not at all used here.

> I would think anybody hearing it for the first time, would hear the word
> "no" in there and wouldn't think that meant the traffic was sighted,
> doh, im mean "in sight".

Then you should listen in on Napa, CA, tower for a while (home of Japan
Airlines basic training). Or Goodyear, AZ (home of Lufthansa training). Or
any other place with a lot of non-native speakers. Most people who have not
grown up with English language war movies will just go "Huh?" upon hearing
that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[The Visitor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:


> Then you should listen in on Napa, CA, tower for a while (home of Japan
> Airlines basic training). Or Goodyear, AZ (home of Lufthansa training). Or
> any other place with a lot of non-native speakers. Most people who have not
> grown up with English language war movies will just go "Huh?" upon hearing
> that.
>

They came to learn, and learn they will.

Well at least the controller knows what it means. And the pilot saying
it knows what it means. And if the other aircraft in the equation is
contains the English challenged pilot, that phrase is not used towards
him, when he is warned of traffic. Everyone else is a bystander.

I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all. Just
sounds kinda hokieto me.

"no joy" WWII ?

"Tally-ho" I guess from foxhunting.

"Bogie" I like his movies.

[Peter R.]

Dave Doe > wrote:

> Do you folk use the phrase LOOKING ? (means the same thing, can't see
> it, but am trying to).

I do, but it usually slips out by habit and I am trying to stop it.
"Looking" is implied in the phrase, "no contact," for I cannot imagine any
pilot replying with a "no contact" and then ceases to continue to look for
the called traffic.


--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> They came to learn, and learn they will.

What they learn is ICAO standard phraseology. The phrases pilots use all
around the world.

> I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all.

Well, what can I say? The use of non-standard phraseology, sadly very
common, is more than obviously detrimental to safety. If you can't "feel"
it, that simply leaves me speechless.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> I do, but it usually slips out by habit and I am trying to stop it.
>

Same here.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[The Visitor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>I don't like it myself, but I don't feel it is a big deal at all.
>
>
> Well, what can I say? The use of non-standard phraseology, sadly very
> common, is more than obviously detrimental to safety. If you can't "feel"
> it, that simply leaves me speechless.
>

Your over reacting. Not to mentin twisting my meaning to sensationalize.

Saying "no joy" isn't that big of a deal. As I explained.

I agree, non standard phraseology is a safety issue. All non-standard
phraseology, isn't equal. And it won't go away. Even controllers resort
to it.

And if my less than hyper disdain for it "leaves you speechless"; I
shudder that what other, bigger issues do to you.

"No joy" is virtually a non issue. I don't care for it, and would never
use it, but I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over it.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:05:23 +0000, Bob Moore wrote:

> Greg Copeland wrote
>> "Collision alert! Collision alert! Collision alert!"
>
> Sure sound's like something that you wrote-up for Flying's
> "I learned About Flying From That" column. A little too dramatic
> don't you think?

[snip]
Like it or not...that's what happened. I'm sorry you have this desire to
rewrite history. Yes, I attempted to write it with a dramatic style as I
thought it would be fun. My intention was certainly not to cause the
drama to stick in your throat. If you back up, stop over analyzing, stop
being anal, and accept the facts offered as facts, you have the whole
story.

The long of the short, the facts provided are accurate. The verbage
provided is accurate. Maybe not to the letter, but certainly not
significantly changed. For example, "on your six" may of been "at
your six"..."following"...may have been "followed." You get the idea.
And yes, "collision alert" is what he said. The substance is there and
accurate. These minor changes to do not change the content or details one
iota.

If you want to dismiss the story because your ego requires it...by all
means, please do.

I must admit, I am very, very surprised at the reaction this very
true story received. The entire time I was writing it, I was seriously
wondering what the general thinking was on action being taken against the
other pilot (assuming he wasn't supposed to be there; which is my
belief). What I get is the vast majority racing to rewrite history...some
openly in denial. Some looking to over analyze to explain away the
situation. Only a few comments were actually constructive.


Greg

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:41:21 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> Having finally spotted the aircraft and realizing I was not flying '80K,
>> whos callsign had become second nature to me, I replied back on the radio.
>> We still had some time to react without acting rashly. After all, I
>> didn't want to upset the "cargo".
>>
>> "95X, I have contact." Not wanting to compound the situation in the event
>> other traffic was near I asked if they wanted me to climb or descend.
>> "Your prerogative." I started to climb with full throttle
>
> At this point, how imminent was the threat? From the way you described
> it, there was plenty of time. You made it to 4500 feet (with time to
> spare); even at 1000 feet per minute, that's thirty seconds, and you
> already see him. I'd've probably stayed at my altitued, said "traffic
> in sight" and then maintained altitude, maneuvering to avoid him as
> necessary. It might not have even been necessary.
>

In hindsight, that would have been the better thing to do. You are
correct, we are not talking about impending death seconds aways. I
thought I had done a pretty good job of spelling that out in both the
original posting and follow ups. There was no drastic, last second
manuvering to avoid a near miss. As I said, I seriously doubt we were
closer than 1/2 mile at our closest point.

> If he was at 11 o'clock, and travelling at 90 degrees to you, you'd
> probably pass behind with no further action on your part.

Actually, we were very clearly converging to a single point in space.
Would it have resulted in a near miss? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The
prudent thing to do was to change course and/or elevation. I picked
elevation. My intention was to cruise at 5500 once out of class B...so
I'm guessing this is where the desire to climb came from. Ya, that's
pretty lame but probably the truth.

>
> After climbing, finding him again at your altitude, turning, finding him
> turning towards you, and turning again, you then say you're "less than a
> mile away". Even half a mile, if you're watching, isn't all that close
> (the Hudson river is only a mile wide).
>
> It would seem to me that there was never an imminent threat; the
> aircraft were too far away. A threat was developing, but once you had
> him in sight it would not take such drastic action to avoid trading
> paint (or pained expressions) with the other aircraft.
>
> I suspect controllers will call out a collision alert further away,
> because of the limited resolution of their screens (vs the High

That was my expectation as well. Assuming he's looking at a pretty big
area, planes within a couple of miles of each other probably look like
they are on top of each other.

> Resolution Plexiglass Display most aircraft carry), and the time it
> takes for any action they take to translate into aircraft movement.
>
> As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar
> histories for that airport.

For what airport? DFW?

>
> Jose

Greg

[Jose[_1_]]

> You are
> correct, we are not talking about impending death seconds aways. I
> thought I had done a pretty good job of spelling that out in both the
> original posting and follow ups.

Well, yes that was there (it was how I inferred it) but you also
conveyed a sense of urgency in the dramatization of your story.

>> As for tracking the idiot, check passur.com. Maybe they have radar
>> histories for that airport.
>
> For what airport? DFW?

No, not DFW. They have Boston however, and Nantucket, and Westchester,
and others. It's actually pretty interesting.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:26:35 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> it would appear, that Mr. Copeland's
>> aircraft did indeed have the right-of-way by virtue of being to the
>> right of the NORDO aircraft.
>
> I'm a little confused here. The encounter was head-on or nearly so, no?
> And the right of way rules apply to non-head-on approaches. So, how
> did you "turn to pass behind" somebody who was nearly head on?
>
> Jose

No. Remember, this all started with me south bound and him west bound.
At this point, I had only changed elevation (climbed) to find he had done
the same when I lowered my nose. I turned (to my left; maybe 10-15
degrees) to pass behind. He then turned (to his right; some 90 degrees)
head on. I then started turning right. As I started to push forward
(barely moved) and increase bank angle (got a couple more degrees rolled
in), he finally started his turn to his right. I **assume** he finally saw
the larger profile of a plane turning. When I went back to 3500', that's
when I was told he was behind me (at my six) and was now also, back at
3500'.

If we make the logical assumption, the "with no squawk" comment probably
means he was squawking 1200; meaning no assigned squawk code. Thus, mode
c was probably enabled.


Greg

[vincent p. norris]

>"I have a visual". Can't they just say "I see him/it/whatever"??

"I have a visual" is six syllables; "I see him" is only three.

Why do so many people say "individual" (five syllables) when the
correct word is "person" (two syllables)?

It's called "the lure of the additional syllable." Many
individuals....er.. people... think it sounds "educated."

It doesn't.

vince norris

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> And if my less than hyper disdain for it "leaves you speechless"; I
> shudder that what other, bigger issues do to you.
>

;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)