First-hand video of a BRS deployment.

[Jim Logajan]

I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:

http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv

I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
would be inevitable.

(Not sure why the pilot didn't see the towing aircraft - unless it was
because the other plane was coming up from below to his right.)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 3:21 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
> list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
> from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
> cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
> http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
> I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
> would be inevitable.
>
> (Not sure why the pilot didn't see the towing aircraft - unless it was
> because the other plane was coming up from below to his right.)

Amazing video...

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Amazing video...

I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because the
white area moves relative to the ground at times.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Amazing video...
>
> I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
> aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because the
> white area moves relative to the ground at times.

Further followup with a bite more info:

Here's what appears to be the full cockpit video from collision to
touchdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_JAg1ZedGo

According to the comments, he was flying a Rans S6. Also, the CNN video was
also posted to YouTube, and based on the dates of those postings this
appears to have been reported back in December (around Christmas) of last
year.

[Bart D. Hull]

Why pull the parachute?

It appears the prop cleared the tow rope and he didn't lose any control
surfaces, in fact it looked like he was gliding in control for awhile
before he pulled the 'chute. He even sounded like he shut down the
engine, that the engine didn't quit and it didn't sound too rough like
it was misbalanced.

I always wondered if the availability of such a device made for more
accidents or less. It sure sounded like a rather solid landing!

He did walk away though.

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Amazing video...
>> I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
>> aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because the
>> white area moves relative to the ground at times.
>
> Further followup with a bite more info:
>
> Here's what appears to be the full cockpit video from collision to
> touchdown:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_JAg1ZedGo
>
> According to the comments, he was flying a Rans S6. Also, the CNN video was
> also posted to YouTube, and based on the dates of those postings this
> appears to have been reported back in December (around Christmas) of last
> year.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Amazing video...
>
> I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
> aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because the
> white area moves relative to the ground at times.
>

Yes, he was attempting to film a buddy.

From rec.aviation.soaring:

From:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: Video of midair with tow rope
Date: 2 Jan 2007 10:57:13 -0800

Following is a translation of the French text posted regarding this
incident:

"The team (tow plane & glider) had just taken off and was in its
initial climb at speed between 110 & 130 kmh (68 - 81 mph), a normal
climb speed with a Duo-discuss on tow. A witness on the ground
confirmed that the ultralight and the towplane flew pretty much at the
same speed with converging tracks. The towplane did come from the
right but did not cross his path. As can be seen on the film, the
pilot of the ultralight, busy with filming the other
ultralightabsolutely did not react to avoid the accident. No avoidance
maneuver is seen on the film. This was confirmed to me by the witness
on the ground. The ultralight did not move to avoid the tow plane.
The tow plane, a DR400, turned knife-edge to the right (one sees the
belly of the plane on the film) in order not to take the full brunt of
the ultralight. I am a tow pilot and can assure you that one very
seldom banks over 30 degrees with a glider on tow. Furthermore the tow
pilot released the rope even before he felt the contact with the
ultralight. The accident would have been much worse if he had not done
so. The glider pilot also maneuvered to avoid the out-of-control
ultralight. His altitude allowed him to return to his field with part
of the cable below his port wing and trailing behind the glider.

Luckily the use of the ballistic parachute on the ultralight proved its
undeniable advantage as can be seen on the other video of the spin
tests of the MCR 01.

Other comments:

I confirm that the two ultralight pilots are Germans. The pilot was
not on the correct frequency, he merely followed his pal and filmed
him. When one knows the volume of traffic at Tallard (between 80,000
and 90,000 flights per year), that's frightening. Either that guy had
not studied navigation or his neurons were not all connected."

Cheers, Charles


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Darkwing]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
> list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains
> video
> from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
> cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
> http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
> I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
> would be inevitable.
>
> (Not sure why the pilot didn't see the towing aircraft - unless it was
> because the other plane was coming up from below to his right.)


Looks like the glider might have been released as there is "something" in
the lower left of the windscreen, still pretty incredible video.

------------------------------------
DW

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
> list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
> from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
> cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
> http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
> I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
> would be inevitable.

I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control surfaces
are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?

While I have no problem with pilots saving themselves with a parachute if they
wish to do so, it seems like this one at least gave up pretty quickly. And
how did he manage not to see the other aicraft? The weather certainly looked
clear.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

..
>
> I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
> parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control
> surfaces
> are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?
>
> While I have no problem with pilots saving themselves with a parachute if
> they
> wish to do so, it seems like this one at least gave up pretty quickly.
> And
> how did he manage not to see the other aicraft? The weather certainly
> looked
> clear.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.

[chris[_1_]]

On Feb 10, 2:29 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
> > list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
> > from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
> > cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
> >http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
> > I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
> > would be inevitable.
>
> I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
> parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control surfaces
> are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?
>
> While I have no problem with pilots saving themselves with a parachute if they
> wish to do so, it seems like this one at least gave up pretty quickly. And
> how did he manage not to see the other aicraft? The weather certainly looked
> clear.
>

Aircraft can be incredibly hard to see, believe it or not.....

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Aircraft can be incredibly hard to see, believe it or not.....

If they are hard to see 200 feet away, how am I supposed to find and maintain
visual separation with aircraft that are five miles away?

This is an aspect of simulation that I find amusing. Some simmers get nervous
if they cannot see traffic that's 15 miles away, even though everything within
a ten-mile radius has huge red letters flashing above it that indicate
aircraft type, call sign, and other stuff. I turn all the labeling off. If I
can't see the aircraft, I can't see it. If I can see it but it's just a dot,
there's no way that I can know the call sign or type. But at least that's a
lot more like real life. It is surprisingly rare that I can even see an
aircraft well enough to figure out the general type of airframe, and I figure
that if I were close enough to read the tail number off the plane for ATC in
real life, it would already be too late.

Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing
them. And the more accurate navigation becomes, the greater the danger,
because you have aircraft aiming for waypoints with an accuracy of only a few
feet, which is comparable to the dimensions of the airplane and thus
guarantees a collision if they both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
altitude assignments).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...


both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
> time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
> altitude assignments).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In addition to being pompous and stupid, you are extremely rude. If you want
a discussion about see-and-avoid, open a thread with that subject.

QUIT HIJACKING THREADS!!

[Bob Noel]

In article <C7nzh.316$II6.159@trnddc07>, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> both arrive at the same waypoint at the same
> > time (and the same altitude, which is made more probable by conventional
> > altitude assignments).
> >
> > --
> > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> In addition to being pompous and stupid, you are extremely rude. If you want
> a discussion about see-and-avoid, open a thread with that subject.
>
> QUIT HIJACKING THREADS!!

do not feed the trolls

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Scott[_1_]]

How about the classic "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the
ocean? A good start."



Bob Noel wrote:



Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
>

[Darkwing]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:sj9zh.704$E71.654@trnddc04...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> .
>>
>> I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
>> parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control
>> surfaces
>> are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?
>>
>> While I have no problem with pilots saving themselves with a parachute if
>> they
>> wish to do so, it seems like this one at least gave up pretty quickly.
>> And
>> how did he manage not to see the other aicraft? The weather certainly
>> looked
>> clear.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
> NOTICE!!!!
> Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified
> to
> issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
> aircraft.
>
>

Gets old doesn't it...

------------------------------------
DW

[Jim Carriere]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
> random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
> collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
> navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!

Thanks for the laugh!

[buttman]

On Feb 10, 11:56 am, Jim Carriere > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
> > random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
> > collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
> > navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing
>
> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!
>
> Thanks for the laugh!

What exactly is so funny about it? He is right.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Carriere wrote

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around
>> completely at random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any
>> aircraft will ever collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways,
>> altitude restrictions, and navaids actually increase the chances of a
>> collision, rather than decreasing
>
> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG
> time!
>
> Thanks for the laugh!

Sorry Jim, I think that the laugh might be on you. In the late 1950s,
the Rand Corp under contract to the US government to study the future
of the Air Traffic Control System, came to the exact same conclusion.
And yes, they did use predictions of future air traffic growth.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Jim Carriere]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Jim Carriere wrote
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around
>>> completely at random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any
>>> aircraft will ever collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways,
>>> altitude restrictions, and navaids actually increase the chances of a
>>> collision, rather than decreasing
>> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG
>> time!
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh!
>
> Sorry Jim, I think that the laugh might be on you. In the late 1950s,
> the Rand Corp under contract to the US government to study the future
> of the Air Traffic Control System, came to the exact same conclusion.
> And yes, they did use predictions of future air traffic growth.

Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I
guess you learn something new every day.

[Morgans]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote

> Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I guess
> you learn something new every day.

But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
results of "winning" the odds are so dire.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Carriere wrote:

> Bob Moore wrote:
>
>> Jim Carriere wrote
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around
>>>> completely at random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any
>>>> aircraft will ever collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways,
>>>> altitude restrictions, and navaids actually increase the chances of a
>>>> collision, rather than decreasing
>>>
>>> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG
>>> time!
>>> Thanks for the laugh!
>>
>>
>> Sorry Jim, I think that the laugh might be on you. In the late 1950s,
>> the Rand Corp under contract to the US government to study the future
>> of the Air Traffic Control System, came to the exact same conclusion.
>> And yes, they did use predictions of future air traffic growth.
>
>
> Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I
> guess you learn something new every day.

Actually, it is very intuitive. If I put 100 people on a football field
and blind fold them and tell them to just walk around, how often will
they run into each other? Now if I put 100 people in a hallway that is
4' wide and 100 yards long and have them randomly walk around, how often
will they run into each other?

Airways and traffic patterns concentrate the traffic into a much small
volume. This will greatly increase the risk of collision and it seems
very intuitive to me.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carriere writes:

> Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I
> guess you learn something new every day.

The logic is straightforward.

The sky is a big place: 145 million square nautical miles, and at least ten
nautical miles deep. That's 1.5 billion cubic nautical miles.

A typical GA aircraft might occupy a cube 20 metres on a side (about 1/500,000
of a cubic nautical mile at most). If aircraft truly flew absolutely randomly
over the surface of the Earth, the chances of them ever colliding would be so
low that no ATC would be needed. Indeed, even visual separation would be
largely unnecessary. There just wouldn't be enough of a probability that
aircraft would ever be in the same place at the same time to justify any
precautions.

Thus, all the need for safety and traffic control to avoid midair collisions
is engendered by the fact that many aircraft like to fly in the same places as
the same time. Airports are the major factor here, as they force aircraft to
come into close proximity to take off and land. The problem is then greatly
exacerbated by airways and waypoints and fixes, all of which "attract"
aircraft to very small fractions of the total airspace. Aircraft are driven
to occupy the same altitude slots at the same lateral points at the same time,
and traffic separation becomes extremely important and difficult.

As navigation improves, the precision of waypoints and fixes and altitude
holds improves with it, and narrows the effectively used airspace even
further, dramatically increasing the likelihood of two aircraft being in the
same place at the same time. Inevitably, and even with the best of
precautions, this leads to an increase in the number of midair collisions.

Look to see how many midairs have occurred away from any airport or airway, at
random altitudes, and you'll see that they are scarce. Most midairs occur
because aircraft are trying to operate in the same highly restricted airspace
at the same time. In fact, an incident of this type provided much of the
impetus for the modern ATC system, when two airliners collided over the Grand
Canyon decades ago. Had they been flying _randomly_ over the Grand Canyon,
the accident never would have occurred; but since they were flying similar
routes to similar reference points at similar altitudes, the chances of them
meeting fatally in midair were hugely increased (by many orders of magnitude).
And while they had the technology to successfully navigate towards a fairly
small, specific spot in the sky, they lacked the technology to avoid colliding
with other aircraft.

A corollary of this is that, if you are flying VFR in an out-of-the-way place,
away from airways and airports and at an unusual or at least random altitude,
the chances of you hitting another aircraft are so low that they can actually
be ignored (although in practice it doesn't hurt to keep your eyes open).

On the other hand, if you have all the latest navigation gizmos and you can
accurately guide your aircraft to a 30-foot-wide spot in the sky with them,
you had better install TCAS to go with your other gadgets and hope that every
other pilot in the same area is similarly equipped.

The irony is that navigating accurately greatly increases your chances of
hitting someone else unless you also have an equally reliable way of avoiding
traffic. Unfortunately, technology for navigation today is outstripping
technology for collision avoidance. Looking out the window helps, but I think
it safe to say that the rate of collisions will continue to increase until
better technological means are found to help avoid collisions. GPS, for
example, is going to increase midair accidents, particularly among aircraft
that are not equipped with any type of collision-avoidance technology.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
> something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
> results of "winning" the odds are so dire.

Yes, but the perception doesn't match the reality. If everyone truly flew
around at random (which implies, by the way, that they'd be taking off and
landing from their backyards, not from airports that tend to concentrate
traffic), traffic avoidance would be a non-issue.

Look at it this way: If you and 200 other people go to a cocktail party in a
ballroom, what are the chances that you'll bump into someone else during the
party? If you are blindfolded (i.e., not actively avoiding traffic), what are
the chances that you'll bump into someone?

Now put all of those 200 people into the Australian outback. What are the
chances of bumping into someone else now? And even if you are blindfolded and
wandering at random, what is the danger that you'll bump into someone else?

If you're flying away from the crowd, midair collisions aren't much to worry
about. Terrain is always down there somewhere, so you have to worry about
that. And you have to worry about weather. But you don't have to worry too
much about traffic. If you're enjoying your flight puttering around in
out-of-the-way areas, you may be the only aircraft in a hundred-mile radius or
better, so you can relax.

To some extent, GA pilots are lucky in this respect, since they can fly VFR on
just about any path they wish. If they choose a lonely area of the country,
there's an excellent chance that they'll have all that sky to themselves.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
>> list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
>> from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
>> cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>>
>> http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>>
>> I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
>> would be inevitable.
>
> I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
> parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control surfaces
> are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?
>
Because it requires more skill than just typing CTRL-ALT-DELETE you.
Don't second guess real pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Because it requires more skill than just typing CTRL-ALT-DELETE you.

How and why would he type Ctrl-Alt-Del? Why not just steer the aircraft to a
landing?

> Don't second guess real pilots.

Or else what?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Riley writes:

> Or else you'll be wrong.

So I'll be just like many real pilots, who are also wrong.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Feb 10, 4:20 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote
>
> > Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I guess
> > you learn something new every day.
>
> But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
> something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
> results of "winning" the odds are so dire.

Absolute agreement. To me, it's a good reason to be "heads up" when
flying over VORs, since they can really concentrate aircraft. Most
of us are spending more time on the gauges watching for the arrow to
change.

Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?

Thanks, Kev

[Kev]

On Feb 10, 7:25 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
> Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
> collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
> airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?


Never mind, I googled it myself, and here's a good summary from the
USAF:

1. Mid-air collisions generally occur during weekend daylight hours
56% of the accidents occurred in the afternoon.
32% of the accidents occurred in the morning.
2% of the accidents occurred at night, dusk, or dawn.
2. Most mid-air collisions occur under good visibility.
3. The majority of the aircraft involved in collisions are not on any
type of flight plan.
4. Nearly all accidents occur at or near uncontrolled airports and at
altitudes below 1000 ft.
5. Flight fatigue is not a major factor in most mid-air collisions.
6. The average flight time prior to the collision is 45 minutes. This
time varies from takeoff to over seven hours.
60% of the pilots on the mishap flight had been airborne thirty
minutes or less.
Only 6% had been flying longer than two hours.
7. Pilots of all experience levels are involved in mid-air collisions,
from the first solo ride to 20,000 hour veterans.

Kev

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Because it requires more skill than just typing CTRL-ALT-DELETE you.
>
> How and why would he type Ctrl-Alt-Del? Why not just steer the aircraft
> to a
> landing?
>
He was talking about you, you idiot. If you get in trouble with
your computer game, all you have to do is cancel the game. Sheesh, what a
numbskull you are.


NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
> collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
> airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?

It's probably just a question of numbers. It's much less likely that two
aircraft will pass over the same VOR at the same moment and the same altitude
than it is that two aircraft will aim for the same runway at the same time
from the same direction.

If traffic is precisely paced along airways, that could increase the risk, by
creating dangerous periods during which multiple aircraft might arrive at the
same spot at the same time.

Precise traffic control increases safety to the extent that you can control
and determine the exact position of all aircraft at the same time, but it also
diminishes safety to the extent that you _cannot_ do these things.

This implies that there's no one-size-fits-all for aviation traffic control
methods, which perhaps has significant implications for the industry, given
the periodic transition towards ever more accurate navigation methods
(unfortunately without a concomitant transition towards more accurate and
reliable anti-collision technologies).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Never mind, I googled it myself, and here's a good summary from the
> USAF:
>
> 1. Mid-air collisions generally occur during weekend daylight hours
> 56% of the accidents occurred in the afternoon.
> 32% of the accidents occurred in the morning.
> 2% of the accidents occurred at night, dusk, or dawn.
> 2. Most mid-air collisions occur under good visibility.
> 3. The majority of the aircraft involved in collisions are not on any
> type of flight plan.
> 4. Nearly all accidents occur at or near uncontrolled airports and at
> altitudes below 1000 ft.
> 5. Flight fatigue is not a major factor in most mid-air collisions.
> 6. The average flight time prior to the collision is 45 minutes. This
> time varies from takeoff to over seven hours.
> 60% of the pilots on the mishap flight had been airborne thirty
> minutes or less.
> Only 6% had been flying longer than two hours.
> 7. Pilots of all experience levels are involved in mid-air collisions,
> from the first solo ride to 20,000 hour veterans.

What's the URL, and what else did they have to say about the problem?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Casey Wilson writes:

> He was talking about you, you idiot.

I'm not an idiot, so he could not have been talking about me.

> If you get in trouble with your computer game, all you have to
> do is cancel the game.

You don't do that with Ctrl-Alt-Del. On Windows XP, this key sequence calls
up the task manager, which is normally not used to stop applications or
processes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken! :)

Scott
Yes, A Real Pilot

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Richard Riley writes:
>
>
>>Or else you'll be wrong.
>
>
> So I'll be just like many real pilots, who are also wrong.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

VORs? Who flies over VORs? GPS eliminated VOR in my vocabulary in 1993 ;)

Scott



Kev wrote:


>
>
> Absolute agreement. To me, it's a good reason to be "heads up" when
> flying over VORs, since they can really concentrate aircraft. Most
> of us are spending more time on the gauges watching for the arrow to
> change.
>
> Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
> collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
> airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?
>
> Thanks, Kev
>

[Scott[_1_]]

I disagree in principle. "Pacing" would imply everyone maintaining a
fixed distance between them and going at the same speed. That doesn't
happen often in "real" aviation. I cruise toward the imaginary VOR at
75 MPH. United 405 may be at 550 MPH (granted I am at 500 feet and they
are at 34,500 feet)...but my friend behind me may be at 500 feet and 110
MPH, therefore I better be checkin' six.

Determine the exact position of each aircraft? Nope, I don't have a
transponder and unless ATC is using primary radar, they don't even know
I exist at that VOR.

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> If traffic is precisely paced along airways, that could increase the risk, by
> creating dangerous periods during which multiple aircraft might arrive at the
> same spot at the same time.
>
> Precise traffic control increases safety to the extent that you can control
> and determine the exact position of all aircraft at the same time, but it also
> diminishes safety to the extent that you _cannot_ do these things.
>

[Jose]

> Now if I put 100 people in a hallway that is 4' wide and 100 yards long and have them randomly walk around

In the corridor they don't randomly walk around. They walk in lines.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> 6. The average flight time prior to the collision is 45 minutes. This
> time varies from takeoff to over seven hours.
> 60% of the pilots on the mishap flight had been airborne thirty
> minutes or less.
> Only 6% had been flying longer than two hours.

For this to be meaningful, one would need to relate it to the typical
flight time - for example, at any given instant, x% of pilots have been
airborne for how long?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I disagree in principle. "Pacing" would imply everyone maintaining a
> fixed distance between them and going at the same speed. That doesn't
> happen often in "real" aviation.

I know, but if it did, it could create additional problems.

Rigidly controlling separation is fine as long as the controls work. If they
slip, however, the likelihood of accidents is vastly increased over a system
that isn't predicated on such rigid control.

> Determine the exact position of each aircraft? Nope, I don't have a
> transponder and unless ATC is using primary radar, they don't even know
> I exist at that VOR.

Yup. But that may change in the future. Start saving now, so that you can
install $100,000 worth of new avionics in your aircraft to tell Big Brother
about your every move.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> VORs? Who flies over VORs? GPS eliminated VOR in my vocabulary in 1993 ;)

Anyone who wants to stay safe in the air flies VORs periodically. I practice
it regularly.

What will you do when GPS is jammed in your area?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
--

NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.

>
> If traffic is precisely paced along airways, that could increase the risk,
> by
> creating dangerous periods during which multiple aircraft might arrive at
> the
> same spot at the same time.
>

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> Never mind, I googled it myself, and here's a good summary from the
>> USAF:

>
> What's the URL, and what else did they have to say about the problem?
>
I have asked you on a number of occasions to attribute statements
you have made to determine the context. Why do you have the temerity to ask
someone to cite a source and provide context when you have consistently
refused to do the same?

[Casey Wilson]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Scott writes:
>
>> VORs? Who flies over VORs? GPS eliminated VOR in my vocabulary in 1993
>> ;)
>
> Anyone who wants to stay safe in the air flies VORs periodically. I
> practice
> it regularly.
>
> What will you do when GPS is jammed in your area?
>
--

NOTICE!!!!
Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified to
issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
aircraft.

> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Casey Wilson writes:

> I have asked you on a number of occasions to attribute statements
> you have made to determine the context. Why do you have the temerity to ask
> someone to cite a source and provide context when you have consistently
> refused to do the same?

I was just curious about the rest of the report and I wanted to read it. Why
is this your concern?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:21:22 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
>list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
>from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
>cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
>http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
>I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
>would be inevitable.
>
>(Not sure why the pilot didn't see the towing aircraft - unless it was
>because the other plane was coming up from below to his right.)

I don't know what it is about that site, but my firewalls and blockers
will not accept it. At least one of them has it on the blocked list.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Logajan]

"chris" > wrote:
> Aircraft can be incredibly hard to see, believe it or not.....

In this case, perhaps it is possible that the tow-plane was in a blind spot
where the Rans S-7 pilot couldn't see him? If one assumes a plane on a
collision course appears to hold roughly a steady bearing, then the tow-
plane would have been visible to the Rans pilot several degrees below the
horizontal (the tow-plane appeared to be climbing as it passed in front,
left to right) and somewhere off to the right - the cowling or camera(!)
blocking the view of the other plane. And then there is all the ground
clutter the pilot in the higher plane has to process to see anything lower
that also happens to be nearly stationary with respect to the scenery.

So (and this is all speculation of course!) it seems to me the tow-plane
pilot might possibly have had the better view to "see and avoid" - since
there were no less than two planes above his altitude that he was heading
toward.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:28:38 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Amazing video...
>>
>> I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
>> aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because the
>> white area moves relative to the ground at times.
>
>Further followup with a bite more info:
>
>Here's what appears to be the full cockpit video from collision to
>touchdown:

They called it a "near collision. Unless the other video shows contact
this one does not. They appear to be about 30 to 50 feet apart.
Did they or did they not collice?

>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_JAg1ZedGo

This site I could get to with no problem.

My question is, "why pull the chute" if they didn't collide, I don't
see any reason for the chute excpet panic.

>
>According to the comments, he was flying a Rans S6. Also, the CNN video was
>also posted to YouTube, and based on the dates of those postings this
>appears to have been reported back in December (around Christmas) of last
>year.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 10 Feb 2007 16:25:25 -0800, "Kev" > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 4:20 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Jim Carriere" > wrote
>>
>> > Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I guess
>> > you learn something new every day.
>>
>> But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
>> something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
>> results of "winning" the odds are so dire.
>
>Absolute agreement. To me, it's a good reason to be "heads up" when
>flying over VORs, since they can really concentrate aircraft. Most
>of us are spending more time on the gauges watching for the arrow to
>change.

I see more aircraft close to VORs than any other place except in the
traffic pattern. When you are headed one way and opposing VFR traffic
is only 500 feet above or below if they are right on altitude they
look *CLOSE*. <:-))
>
>Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
>collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
>airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?

I don't have any stats, but from what I remember in the news in recent
years "it seems" as if most mid airs are close to airport. OTOH there
are some outstanding exceptions such as the two jets last fall or
summer down in South America.
>
>Thanks, Kev
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Logajan]

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote:
> Why pull the parachute?

Just speculating, but when he ran into the tow rope it definitely shook
the plane bad enough that it moved the camera around in its mount (or may
be that the pilot knocked the camera when he cutoff the engine).

> It appears the prop cleared the tow rope and he didn't lose any
> control surfaces, in fact it looked like he was gliding in control for
> awhile before he pulled the 'chute. He even sounded like he shut down
> the engine, that the engine didn't quit and it didn't sound too rough
> like it was misbalanced.

First, the pilot (and reporter) said in the CNN report that the prop
struck the tow rope.

Secondly, consider the following:

In the "original" cockpit video (link quoted below), it sounds like the
BRS rocket is fired at about 11 seconds into the video and the plane hits
the ground at about 51 seconds into the video. Assuming nothing was cut
from the video, it took about 39 seconds to descend under the chute. The
BRS web site says descent rates are typically between 15 fps and 28 fps
at 5000 ft density altitude. That puts the altitude possibly somewhere in
the range of 600 to 1100 feet agl. The Rans web site lists the glide
ratio of the Rans S-6 at about 9:1. So the pilot would have had between 1
and 2 miles of best-glide distance to find a good landing spot. I don't
know what the best glide speed of the Rans S-6 is; I'll guesstimate 60
mph. That gives the pilot between 1 and 2 minutes of air time - absolute
max. Decision height for the BRS is around 300 feet.

Given the altitude, unknown condition of plane and insufficient time to
determine the extent of the damage, the decision to deploy the chute was,
in my very humble opinion, the correct one. It is just the sort of
situation that I believe ballistic chutes were originally designed for.

> I always wondered if the availability of such a device made for more
> accidents or less. It sure sounded like a rather solid landing!
>
> He did walk away though.

I most definitely disagree - the parachute no more caused this accident
than the pilot's seatbelt did.

Solid landing perhaps, but as the CNN story mentioned, not only did the
pilot walk away, he was able to rebuild his plane - with of course a new
chute.

The end result appears no different than a typical successful emergency
landing where some damage occurs.

>
> Bart D. Hull
>
> Tempe, Arizona
>
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
> for my Subaru Engine Conversion
> Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
> for Tango II I'm building.
>
> Remove -nospam to reply via email.
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Amazing video...
>>> I just noticed that the pilot appears to have been following another
>>> aircraft (white winged). At least that is the way it looks because
>>> the white area moves relative to the ground at times.
>>
>> Further followup with a bite more info:
>>
>> Here's what appears to be the full cockpit video from collision to
>> touchdown:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_JAg1ZedGo
>>
>> According to the comments, he was flying a Rans S6. Also, the CNN
>> video was also posted to YouTube, and based on the dates of those
>> postings this appears to have been reported back in December (around
>> Christmas) of last year.

[Jim Logajan]

Roger > wrote:
> I don't know what it is about that site, but my firewalls and blockers
> will not accept it. At least one of them has it on the blocked list.

While checking BRS parachute descent rates, I discovered that BRS has
almost the same video on their web site (linked from their home page):

http://brsparachutes.com/Movies/CNN_OFF_AIR.wmv

[Montblack]

("Roger" wrote)
> I don't know what it is about that site, but my firewalls and blockers
> will not accept it. At least one of them has it on the blocked list.


Try YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30
Mid-air


Montblack

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:49:29 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Roger" wrote)
>> I don't know what it is about that site, but my firewalls and blockers
>> will not accept it. At least one of them has it on the blocked list.
>
>
>Try YouTube:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30

Strange, U-Tube works, but it also blocks the CNN site video.
I also saw the other U-tube clip but that one did not appear to show
the tow rope impact as did this one.

In the first video it appeared he just pulled the nose up and then
blew the chute. In the second one you can see the tow rope.

Now if he'd just get smart enough to fly the airplane and have some
one else do the photography, or will he be like the guy we had at the
airport that ran out of gas three times in a couple of months before
trashing a 172. Then he had another one for maybe 6 months before he
stalled the engine on a taxiway, got out and propped it (battery was
dead) but forgot to retard the throttle. It left without him and ended
up in the trees on the SW corner of the airfield. About 6 months later
he piled up and Emeraud putting himself and another guy in the
hospital. They did both survive and the Emeraud is flying. (different
pilot)<:-)).

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

[Scott[_1_]]

I have a piece of old technology called a map that I use for primary
navigation (yes, I still draw my course on the chart for every
cross-country flight) and the GPS is used to give me a quick check of my
groundspeed and a quick check. I do have the capability to fly to/from
a VOR with my Icom handheld. I don't have an electrical system in my
plane...and...what good is flying to/from a VOR in a plane that does
have an electrical system and that electrical system fails (assuming
they are not carrying a handheld for backup)? We all have to revert
back to using a map.

Scott




Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>VORs? Who flies over VORs? GPS eliminated VOR in my vocabulary in 1993 ;)
>
>
> Anyone who wants to stay safe in the air flies VORs periodically. I practice
> it regularly.
>
> What will you do when GPS is jammed in your area?
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kev > posted:

> On Feb 10, 4:20 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Jim Carriere" > wrote
>>
>>> Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I
>>> guess you learn something new every day.
>>
>> But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
>> something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in
>> that the results of "winning" the odds are so dire.
>
> Absolute agreement. To me, it's a good reason to be "heads up" when
> flying over VORs, since they can really concentrate aircraft. Most
> of us are spending more time on the gauges watching for the arrow to
> change.
>
> Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
> collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
> airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?
>
I don't know the stats, but I lost a friend in this exact scenario about a
year ago. His plane (homebuilt Lancair) overtook a C-172 with an IFR
student and instructor near a VOR. All were killed. I've avoided
overflying VORs since then.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I have a piece of old technology called a map that I use for primary
> navigation (yes, I still draw my course on the chart for every
> cross-country flight) and the GPS is used to give me a quick check of my
> groundspeed and a quick check.

I get the impression that the only map that many newer pilots look at is the
one that glows in a small rectangle in the cockpit of the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:28:23 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Scott writes:
>
>> I have a piece of old technology called a map that I use for primary
>> navigation (yes, I still draw my course on the chart for every
>> cross-country flight) and the GPS is used to give me a quick check of my
>> groundspeed and a quick check.
>
>I get the impression that the only map that many newer pilots look at is the
>one that glows in a small rectangle in the cockpit of the aircraft.

Hell, no, mine don't glow! :-)

Ron "Far out, man!" Wanttaja

[Scott[_1_]]

Nope...mine are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>
> I get the impression that the only map that many newer pilots look at is the
> one that glows in a small rectangle in the cockpit of the aircraft.
>

[Jon Woellhaf]

Scott wrote
> ... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)

Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills to
master was folding and refolding charts while flying.

I take it back. We still don't have it mastered.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:06:29 -0700, "Jon Woellhaf" >
wrote:

>Scott wrote
>> ... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)
>
>Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills to
>master was folding and refolding charts while flying.

Try it in an open cockpit. Typically, it just ends up getting mashed under my
butt.... :-)

Ron "How do I clew this thing up" Wanttaja

[Dan[_2_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:06:29 -0700, "Jon Woellhaf" >
> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote
>>> ... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)
>> Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills to
>> master was folding and refolding charts while flying.
>
> Try it in an open cockpit. Typically, it just ends up getting mashed under my
> butt.... :-)
>
> Ron "How do I clew this thing up" Wanttaja

In my day we didn't have maps. We used IFD (I follow dinosaurs) rules.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott[_1_]]

I do use mine in an open cockpit! One thing I learned is to KEEP them
under my butt between check points. Also, keep it there when doing
aggressive slips on short final. In a Junior Ace, this creates a lot of
suction on the high side of the cockpit...had to walk off the approach
end at a fly in once to get my maps back :)

Scott


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:06:29 -0700, "Jon Woellhaf" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott wrote
>>
>>>... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)
>>
>>Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills to
>>master was folding and refolding charts while flying.
>
>
> Try it in an open cockpit. Typically, it just ends up getting mashed under my
> butt.... :-)
>
> Ron "How do I clew this thing up" Wanttaja

[Scott[_1_]]

Well, at least they had big droppings to follow ;) You could follow
them at 1000 feet...

Scott


Dan wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:06:29 -0700, "Jon Woellhaf"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrote
>>>
>>>> ... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an
>>>> accordion :)
>>>
>>> Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills
>>> to master was folding and refolding charts while flying.
>>
>>
>> Try it in an open cockpit. Typically, it just ends up getting mashed
>> under my
>> butt.... :-)
>>
>> Ron "How do I clew this thing up" Wanttaja
>
>
> In my day we didn't have maps. We used IFD (I follow dinosaurs) rules.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Theune]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> Scott wrote
>> ... [My maps] are made of paper and have as many folds as an accordion :)
>
> Both my son and I thought one of the most difficult aviation skills to
> master was folding and refolding charts while flying.
>
> I take it back. We still don't have it mastered.
>
>
Grasshopper;
You have not yet mastered map origami, you cannot class master status as
aviator yet.

[Kev]

On Feb 11, 9:09 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Kev > posted:
> > Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
> > collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
> > airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?
>
> I don't know the stats, but I lost a friend in this exact scenario about a
> year ago. His plane (homebuilt Lancair) overtook a C-172 with an IFR
> student and instructor near a VOR. All were killed. I've avoided
> overflying VORs since then.

I just wanted to say I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Neil.

I have a buddy who makes a point of looking for and directly
overflying VORs. He just likes looking at them. His habit has always
creeped me out a little, because if he's not the only doing it...

Kev

[Dave[_3_]]

Once again, Mx shows a better understanding of some of these
concepts...

He is exactly right....

Dave

On 10 Feb 2007 12:21:30 -0800, "buttman" > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 11:56 am, Jim Carriere > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely at
>> > random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
>> > collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
>> > navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than decreasing
>>
>> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh!
>
>What exactly is so funny about it? He is right.

[Dave[_3_]]

AWWWW c'mon!

He is asking so he can read more on the subject...

What's the problem with someone wishing the reference to learn more?

I detect no inference here that he was questioning the author as to
validity...

D


On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 04:09:05 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Kev writes:
>>
>>> Never mind, I googled it myself, and here's a good summary from the
>>> USAF:
>
>>
>> What's the URL, and what else did they have to say about the problem?
>>
> I have asked you on a number of occasions to attribute statements
>you have made to determine the context. Why do you have the temerity to ask
>someone to cite a source and provide context when you have consistently
>refused to do the same?
>
>

[Dave[_3_]]

Heh, heh,

Want to guess how many plug in VOR locations as waypoints in their
GPS?

.....so they can switch to the VOR instantly if the GPS goes TU?

GPS will take you to a VOR very nicely...

Dave


On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:50:24 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>On 10 Feb 2007 16:25:25 -0800, "Kev" > wrote:
>
>>On Feb 10, 4:20 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>> "Jim Carriere" > wrote
>>>
>>> > Hmm! At first glance that conclusion seems counterintuitive, but I guess
>>> > you learn something new every day.
>>>
>>> But leaving an event up to chance as the avoidance mechanism, is not
>>> something that sits well with people. I have to feel that way, in that the
>>> results of "winning" the odds are so dire.
>>
>>Absolute agreement. To me, it's a good reason to be "heads up" when
>>flying over VORs, since they can really concentrate aircraft. Most
>>of us are spending more time on the gauges watching for the arrow to
>>change.
>
>I see more aircraft close to VORs than any other place except in the
>traffic pattern. When you are headed one way and opposing VFR traffic
>is only 500 feet above or below if they are right on altitude they
>look *CLOSE*. <:-))
>>
>>Still, maybe it's a non-issue, since we don't seem to hear of lots of
>>collisions around VORs. Seems like mid-airs are mostly around
>>airports. Anyone know the real stats of locations offhand?
>
>I don't have any stats, but from what I remember in the news in recent
>years "it seems" as if most mid airs are close to airport. OTOH there
>are some outstanding exceptions such as the two jets last fall or
>summer down in South America.
>>
>>Thanks, Kev
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

[Scott[_1_]]

The only time I do is when the VOR is co-located on the field...but not
saying that I never COULD do that! GPS will take you nicely to an NDB, a
Taco Bell or any other waypoint that's programmed in :)

Scott


Dave wrote:

> Heh, heh,
>
> Want to guess how many plug in VOR locations as waypoints in their
> GPS?
>
> ....so they can switch to the VOR instantly if the GPS goes TU?
>
> GPS will take you to a VOR very nicely...
>
> Dave

[Kev]

On Feb 10, 8:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > Never mind, I googled it myself, and here's a good summary from the
> > USAF:
> [....about mid-air avoidance ...]
>
> What's the URL, and what else did they have to say about the problem?

Google "mid-air collision statistics af.mil" and it's one of the first
few you get.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Google "mid-air collision statistics af.mil" and it's one of the first
> few you get.

If it's one of the af.mil links, it's inaccessible outside the United States.
The Air Force is much more cowardly than the other military services, and so
it is the only one that disallows "foreign" access to its sites.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> Want to guess how many plug in VOR locations as waypoints in their
> GPS?
>
> ....so they can switch to the VOR instantly if the GPS goes TU?

I'm not sure that it's so that they can switch instantly to the VOR. In fact,
I doubt that they even bother to tune the VOR.

> GPS will take you to a VOR very nicely...

And at least as accurately as the real thing, which makes it at least as great
a risk for midair collisions. And it's easier to do a DIRECT-TO to a VOR than
to tune it and follow it with instruments, so now the pilots reaching VORs
with great accuracy may not be as bright as their predecessors.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Nils Rostedt]

"Mxsmanic" wrote
>
> I get the impression that the only map that many newer pilots look at is
> the
> one that glows in a small rectangle in the cockpit of the aircraft.
>

No one becomes a pilot without the ability to read and navigate using a
paper map.

[Nils Rostedt]

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

>> Google "mid-air collision statistics af.mil" and it's one of the first
>> few you get.
>
> If it's one of the af.mil links, it's inaccessible outside the United
> States.
> The Air Force is much more cowardly than the other military services, and
> so
> it is the only one that disallows "foreign" access to its sites.
>

Interesting. I'm outside the US and did not have any problems accessing this
and other
af.mil webpages.

[Mxsmanic]

Nils Rostedt writes:

> Interesting. I'm outside the US and did not have any problems accessing this
> and other
> af.mil webpages.

Where are you? I'm in France.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Nils Rostedt writes:

> No one becomes a pilot without the ability to read and navigate using a
> paper map.

It's possible to learn something and retain it just long enough to pass a
test, and many people do exactly that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

Maybe they're just selective of who gets in and who doesn't ;)

Scott
ex-USAF

Nils Rostedt wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" wrote:
>
>
>>>Google "mid-air collision statistics af.mil" and it's one of the first
>>>few you get.
>>
>>If it's one of the af.mil links, it's inaccessible outside the United
>>States.
>>The Air Force is much more cowardly than the other military services, and
>>so
>>it is the only one that disallows "foreign" access to its sites.
>>
>
>
> Interesting. I'm outside the US and did not have any problems accessing this
> and other
> af.mil webpages.
>
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Oh God, here we go with the French jokes....

Get out the Asbestos fire suits ;)

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nils Rostedt writes:
>
>
>>Interesting. I'm outside the US and did not have any problems accessing this
>>and other
>>af.mil webpages.
>
>
> Where are you? I'm in France.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

I don't think we pilots would do that with paper maps. New sectional
charts come out every 6 months and I always scan a new map and look for
"new" things in my "local" area such as new radio towers, airports,
control towers, etc. Plus the old ones are great to have...they make
nice wallpaper for the den or basement bar...

Scott



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nils Rostedt writes:
>
>
>>No one becomes a pilot without the ability to read and navigate using a
>>paper map.
>
>
> It's possible to learn something and retain it just long enough to pass a
> test, and many people do exactly that.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Maybe they're just selective of who gets in and who doesn't ;)

Maybe they are cowards.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I don't think we pilots would do that with paper maps.

People do it in every domain of life, and pilots are not special.

> New sectional
> charts come out every 6 months and I always scan a new map and look for
> "new" things in my "local" area such as new radio towers, airports,
> control towers, etc. Plus the old ones are great to have...they make
> nice wallpaper for the den or basement bar...

Good for you, but that doesn't mean that all pilots are as conscientious, just
as all pilots don't necessarily have a basement bar.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jerry Springer]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Maybe they're just selective of who gets in and who doesn't ;)
>
>
> Maybe they are cowards.
>
Whoa, this from a.....well never mind.

[Jerry Springer]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Maybe they're just selective of who gets in and who doesn't ;)
>
>
> Maybe they are cowards.
>
I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
"french" fries.

[Viperdoc]

So now he's an expert on the Air Force as well? How much time did you
actually spend in the military to make this conclusion?

While I have given up trying to respond to the troll, I also felt compelled
to defend the Air Force. After nearly 20 years of working with some of the
most dedicated and nicest people, it is hard to ignore more groundless
criticism from someone who can't find or hold a job on either continent.

[Over[_2_]]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
news:KMTAh.3540$TG6.1817@trnddc06...

> I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
> many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
> "french" fries.

Sorry to see you couldn't keep it in. You don't think MX's characterization
might be partly due to your country's mischaracterization of the French as
cowards?

[Over[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...

>After nearly 20 years of working with some of the most dedicated and nicest
>people, it is hard to ignore more groundless criticism from someone who
>can't find or hold a job on either continent.

There's little doubt that most of the American Air force are exactly as you
say, and great ambassadors for your country as well. I see many of them
often here in eastern Canada. There are a few you could afford to hide away
at home though, usually lower ranks.

[Scott[_1_]]

Afraid of the French? Another person chimed in that he had no trouble
getting to their website from a different foreign country. I'd check
with your ISP and see if they have a range of IP addresses blocked.
Maybe THEY'RE afraid of the USAF! Just to double check, is this the
address you used: http://www.af.mil/





Mxsmanic wrote:
> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Maybe they're just selective of who gets in and who doesn't ;)
>
>
> Maybe they are cowards.
>

[Jerry Springer]

Over wrote:
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> news:KMTAh.3540$TG6.1817@trnddc06...
>
>
>>I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
>>many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
>>"french" fries.
>
>
> Sorry to see you couldn't keep it in. You don't think MX's characterization
> might be partly due to your country's mischaracterization of the French as
> cowards?
>
>
I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!

[BDS[_2_]]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote

> I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
> because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!

Like many things he writes, it is meant to stir up an emotional response -
nothing more.

Consider the source...

BDS

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, BDS says...
>
>
>"Jerry Springer" > wrote
>
>> I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
>> because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!
>
>Like many things he writes, it is meant to stir up an emotional response -
>nothing more.
>
>Consider the source...

Could he be the Spawn of juan? :-)

Chuck S

[Over[_2_]]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
news:rbZAh.4234$E71.1815@trnddc04...

>> Sorry to see you couldn't keep it in. You don't think MX's
>> characterization might be partly due to your country's
>> mischaracterization of the French as cowards?
> I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
> because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!

True, just as the whole concept of "we all now eat "freedom" fries because
GW told us to hate the French" is ridiculous.

[Ken Finney]

"Over" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>After nearly 20 years of working with some of the most dedicated and
>>nicest people, it is hard to ignore more groundless criticism from someone
>>who can't find or hold a job on either continent.
>
> There's little doubt that most of the American Air force are exactly as
> you say, and great ambassadors for your country as well. I see many of
> them often here in eastern Canada. There are a few you could afford to
> hide away at home though, usually lower ranks.
>

Those are the ones we send to Canada. We figure they will fit it better
there...


;^)

[Mxsmanic]

Jerry Springer writes:

> I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
> many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
> "french" fries.

They can allow overseas users access to their public Web sites and prove me
wrong. But they're too a-scared to do that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jerry Springer writes:

> I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
> because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!

How would you explain the blocked traffic?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Afraid of the French? Another person chimed in that he had no trouble
> getting to their website from a different foreign country. I'd check
> with your ISP and see if they have a range of IP addresses blocked.

It's not my ISP. The routing is being blocked, and so is DNS traffic.

> Maybe THEY'RE afraid of the USAF! Just to double check, is this the
> address you used: http://www.af.mil/

Anything with af.mil in it fails to work.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Over[_2_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Over" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>
>>>After nearly 20 years of working with some of the most dedicated and
>>>nicest people, it is hard to ignore more groundless criticism from
>>>someone who can't find or hold a job on either continent.
>>
>> There's little doubt that most of the American Air force are exactly as
>> you say, and great ambassadors for your country as well. I see many of
>> them often here in eastern Canada. There are a few you could afford to
>> hide away at home though, usually lower ranks.
>>
>
> Those are the ones we send to Canada. We figure they will fit it better
> there...
>

Now I know why you get all your good comedians from here.

[Viperdoc]

Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?

Are they cowards or smart?

[Scott[_1_]]

Bull! Someone else in a non-U.S. country said they were able to see the
USAF site with no problem. Check to be sure it's not YOUR computer
before making accusations against the USAF that appear unwarranted.

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jerry Springer writes:
>
>
>>I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
>>many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
>>"french" fries.
>
>
> They can allow overseas users access to their public Web sites and prove me
> wrong. But they're too a-scared to do that.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

What is YOUR reasoning that the USAF is made up of cowards? They appear
to be only invisible to you. One case out of 6.5 billion people on the
planet. Hardly definitive in my book. Go to a neighbors house and see
if you can see their website from there.

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jerry Springer writes:
>
>
>>I have no idea what his motive was, but calling the Air force cowards
>>because someone cannot log on to a web site is ridiculous!!!!
>
>
> How would you explain the blocked traffic?
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Do you know what DNS stands for? It's Domain Name Server. In other
words, it is a server at your ISP that translates nemonic web addresses
into IP addresses. For example, you type http://www.dnsexample.com into
your address bar and the DNS translates that into something like
192.34.76.2. So if you are getting DNS errors the DNS at your ISP is
defective or not getting updates correctly from the network.

Scott


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Afraid of the French? Another person chimed in that he had no trouble
>>getting to their website from a different foreign country. I'd check
>>with your ISP and see if they have a range of IP addresses blocked.
>
>
> It's not my ISP. The routing is being blocked, and so is DNS traffic.
>
>
>>Maybe THEY'RE afraid of the USAF! Just to double check, is this the
>>address you used: http://www.af.mil/
>
>
> Anything with af.mil in it fails to work.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> What is YOUR reasoning that the USAF is made up of cowards?

They're afraid to let people see their Web sites.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Bull! Someone else in a non-U.S. country said they were able to see the
> USAF site with no problem. Check to be sure it's not YOUR computer
> before making accusations against the USAF that appear unwarranted.

It's not my computer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?

It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.

> Are they cowards or smart?

Cowards. Like most Americans these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Do you know what DNS stands for? It's Domain Name Server. In other
> words, it is a server at your ISP that translates nemonic web addresses
> into IP addresses. For example, you type http://www.dnsexample.com into
> your address bar and the DNS translates that into something like
> 192.34.76.2. So if you are getting DNS errors the DNS at your ISP is
> defective or not getting updates correctly from the network.

No. I run my own DNS nameserver, and it does not query the ISP's server (the
ISP's server is unreliable). If it cannot find a domain it will go all the
way back to the root servers, like most nameservers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

Again I make my same point...it only seems YOU can't see it for whatever
reason. I doubt cowardice on the Air Force's part has anything to do
with it.



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>What is YOUR reasoning that the USAF is made up of cowards?
>
>
> They're afraid to let people see their Web sites.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Who's computer is it then? Maybe they need to have it checked.



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Bull! Someone else in a non-U.S. country said they were able to see the
>>USAF site with no problem. Check to be sure it's not YOUR computer
>>before making accusations against the USAF that appear unwarranted.
>
>
> It's not my computer.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Good one. How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
wrong) around the world? I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as
being a coward, U.S. or otherwise. Watch the news sometime...or don't
they offer those channels in France?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>
>>Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>
>
> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>
>
>>Are they cowards or smart?
>
>
> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

So where do you get updates on domain names from? Without that, your
packets should go to some default server somewhere. Maybe the problem
lies with THAT server, wherever it is. Do you have a router running on
your system with any sort of firewall? Like I said before, take a trip
to your local library or internet cafe and check to see if you can get
to the site from there. So far, it doesn't sound like you've done any
outside troubleshooting. All you say is "It ain't my stuff that's bad."

So until you do, most here won't take your complaint too seriously
(myself included)...





Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Do you know what DNS stands for? It's Domain Name Server. In other
>>words, it is a server at your ISP that translates nemonic web addresses
>>into IP addresses. For example, you type http://www.dnsexample.com into
>>your address bar and the DNS translates that into something like
>>192.34.76.2. So if you are getting DNS errors the DNS at your ISP is
>>defective or not getting updates correctly from the network.
>
>
> No. I run my own DNS nameserver, and it does not query the ISP's server (the
> ISP's server is unreliable). If it cannot find a domain it will go all the
> way back to the root servers, like most nameservers.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Again I make my same point...it only seems YOU can't see it for whatever
> reason. I doubt cowardice on the Air Force's part has anything to do
> with it.

The Air Force seems to be blocking the traffic. They are afraid to let people
see their Web sites. The other branches of the military don't seem to have
this fear.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Who's computer is it then? Maybe they need to have it checked.

I meant that the problem is not at my end.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Good one.

I don't consider a loss of civil liberties due to cowardice to be good.

> How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
> wrong) around the world?

I don't know. How is that relevant?

> I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as being a coward, U.S.
> or otherwise.

I was talking about the civilian population.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying...maybe losing it in the
translation somewhere. I can get Army, Marines, Navy AND Air Force
sites. None are blocked here. Others in countries outside of the U.S.
can get the Air Force site. Why are you the only one that has chimed in
and said it can't be seen?



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Again I make my same point...it only seems YOU can't see it for whatever
>>reason. I doubt cowardice on the Air Force's part has anything to do
>>with it.
>
>
> The Air Force seems to be blocking the traffic. They are afraid to let people
> see their Web sites. The other branches of the military don't seem to have
> this fear.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

How do you know? Have you left your keyboard long enough to go get a
cup of coffee at an internet cafe or anywhere else with a computer that
is NOT on your home network and try to access the site?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Who's computer is it then? Maybe they need to have it checked.
>
>
> I meant that the problem is not at my end.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

OK I'll bite. I will answer each of your questions below (where you
wrote your questions)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>Good one.
>
>
> I don't consider a loss of civil liberties due to cowardice to be good.

This one I can't answer. How are any loss of liberties atrributable to
cowardice of the USAF as you claim? Maybe you mean the loss of
liberties because of terrorist attacks and the knee jerk reactions that
ensue to "protect lives"? With that, I would agree that it is not good
to exchange liberties for security. But, that's just how I feel.
>
>
>>How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
>>wrong) around the world?
>
>
> I don't know. How is that relevant?

Cowards would not be in armed conflicts, therefore if the French are not
in armed conflicts, they themselves could be called cowards. Air Force
folks are in armed conflicts, so how would you consider them cowards?
>
>
>>I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as being a coward, U.S.
>>or otherwise.
>
>
> I was talking about the civilian population.

So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
their site? They are military, not civilian. Now it sounds like you
are squirming to change your argument.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> So where do you get updates on domain names from?

Since I have a nameserver, the updates come directly from the authoritative
name servers for each domain, in real time.

> Without that, your packets should go to some default server somewhere.

They don't go anywhere if the DNS cannot resolve the name.

> Maybe the problem lies with THAT server, wherever it is.

I can't reach the servers with direct IP addressing, either.

> Do you have a router running on your system with any sort of firewall?

Yes. But there is nothing in the firewall that says "exclude Air Force
traffic."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying...maybe losing it in the
> translation somewhere. I can get Army, Marines, Navy AND Air Force
> sites. None are blocked here.

Where is "here"?

> Others in countries outside of the U.S.
> can get the Air Force site. Why are you the only one that has chimed in
> and said it can't be seen?

Maybe I'm the only one trying from a region that frightens the Air Force.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> How do you know? Have you left your keyboard long enough to go get a
> cup of coffee at an internet cafe or anywhere else with a computer that
> is NOT on your home network and try to access the site?

I've used computers at other locations, and they have the same problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> This one I can't answer. How are any loss of liberties atrributable to
> cowardice of the USAF as you claim?

That's not what I claimed. The loss of civil liberties is attributable to
cowardice in the population in general.

> Maybe you mean the loss of
> liberties because of terrorist attacks and the knee jerk reactions that
> ensue to "protect lives"?

In part, yes.

> With that, I would agree that it is not good
> to exchange liberties for security. But, that's just how I feel.

That's how the founders of the country felt, too, as well as a couple of
million people who fought to protect those liberties.

> Cowards would not be in armed conflicts ...

Wise men wouldn't be in armed conflicts, either.

> ... therefore if the French are not
> in armed conflicts, they themselves could be called cowards.

So anyone who isn't violent and fighting is a coward?

> Air Force
> folks are in armed conflicts, so how would you consider them cowards?

They don't let people visit their Web sites. They must be afraid of
something.

> So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
> their site?

Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

I understand that. But you don't have a range of IP addresses blocked
in which the USAF site might be in do you?



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:

>
>
>>Do you have a router running on your system with any sort of firewall?
>
>
> Yes. But there is nothing in the firewall that says "exclude Air Force
> traffic."
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Oops, sorry...thought I'd made that clear in previous posts..."Here" is
the USA.

What would it be from your region that frightens the Air Force? Not
sure I'm making the connection to what you are trying to say.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying...maybe losing it in the
>>translation somewhere. I can get Army, Marines, Navy AND Air Force
>>sites. None are blocked here.
>
>
> Where is "here"?
>
>
>>Others in countries outside of the U.S.
>>can get the Air Force site. Why are you the only one that has chimed in
>>and said it can't be seen?
>
>
> Maybe I'm the only one trying from a region that frightens the Air Force.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. The other computers are not on your
network, either at your home or using the same ISP?



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>How do you know? Have you left your keyboard long enough to go get a
>>cup of coffee at an internet cafe or anywhere else with a computer that
>>is NOT on your home network and try to access the site?
>
>
> I've used computers at other locations, and they have the same problem.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> What would it be from your region that frightens the Air Force?

I don't know; you tell me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> OK, now we're getting somewhere. The other computers are not on your
> network, either at your home or using the same ISP?

Right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I understand that. But you don't have a range of IP addresses blocked
> in which the USAF site might be in do you?

I don't have any ranges blocked.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott[_1_]]

That's how I took it.

You claim the USAF shows cowardice. You claim loss of liberties is
attributable to cowardice. Therefore the loss of liberties is
attributable to the USAF.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>This one I can't answer. How are any loss of liberties atrributable to
>>cowardice of the USAF as you claim?
>
>
> That's not what I claimed. The loss of civil liberties is attributable to
> cowardice in the population in general.
>
>
>>Maybe you mean the loss of
>>liberties because of terrorist attacks and the knee jerk reactions that
>>ensue to "protect lives"?
>
>
> In part, yes.
>
>
>>With that, I would agree that it is not good
>>to exchange liberties for security. But, that's just how I feel.
>
>
> That's how the founders of the country felt, too, as well as a couple of
> million people who fought to protect those liberties.

Yes, they FOUGHT, so they weren't cowards.
>
>
>>Cowards would not be in armed conflicts ...
>
>
> Wise men wouldn't be in armed conflicts, either.

Maybe true, but if an enemy is dumb (un WISE) and comes fighting, can
you supply an example of an alternative to fighting?
>
>
>>... therefore if the French are not
>>in armed conflicts, they themselves could be called cowards.
>
>
> So anyone who isn't violent and fighting is a coward?

No, not necessarily. I was just saying that cowards won't fight. Smart
people MIGHT fight if cornered.
>
>
>>Air Force
>>folks are in armed conflicts, so how would you consider them cowards?
>
>
> They don't let people visit their Web sites. They must be afraid of
> something.

No, it appears they won't let ONE person (you imply many with the word
people -- which is plural for person) see their site. Show me an
example of someone else who can't view their site.
>
>
>>So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
>>their site?
>
>
> Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.
> Again, it appears they only have one address blocked and it happens to be yours. Cite references to others who share your problem.

[Scott[_1_]]

Well, it's a stalemate then. You don't know and I don't know. Crude
form of De tante.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>What would it be from your region that frightens the Air Force?
>
>
> I don't know; you tell me.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Well this one has me stumped. Makes no sense. How would they know
which IP addresses are from France alone? It's not like any IP address
that starts with 168 for example is from France.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>OK, now we're getting somewhere. The other computers are not on your
>>network, either at your home or using the same ISP?
>
>
> Right.
>

[Dan[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>

Unlike you who is big and tough behind his modem?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott[_1_]]

Then why do you have a firewall? What does it do for you?



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>I understand that. But you don't have a range of IP addresses blocked
>>in which the USAF site might be in do you?
>
>
> I don't have any ranges blocked.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Oh crap, you've got another Air Force alumni riled up ;)

Hi Dan!

Scott


Dan wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>>
>
> Unlike you who is big and tough behind his modem?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> Good one. How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
> wrong) around the world? I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as
> being a coward, U.S. or otherwise. Watch the news sometime...or don't
> they offer those channels in France?
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>>
>>
>> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>>
>>
>>> Are they cowards or smart?
>>
>>
>> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>>

Um, Scott? The French have a long and generally honourable military
history.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott[_1_]]

I thought the implication was they were smart and wouldn't take up
fighting (which would be evidenced by that military history). Maybe I
misunderstood the Frenchman's posts...

Scott



Dan wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Good one. How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
>> wrong) around the world? I wouldn't consider anyone in the military
>> as being a coward, U.S. or otherwise. Watch the news sometime...or
>> don't they offer those channels in France?
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are they cowards or smart?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>>>
>
> Um, Scott? The French have a long and generally honourable military
> history.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Scott writes:
<snip>
>
>> So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
>> their site?
>
> Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.
>
Perhaps they just want to be selective as to whom they allow access.
If you came to my front door and demanded entry would you call me a
coward if I deny you entry?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott[_1_]]

As Chuck says, Remember the Alamo! Oh wait...they weren't THERE either! :(

Scott


Dan wrote:

>>>
>
> Um, Scott? The French have a long and generally honourable military
> history.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott[_1_]]

What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
blocked? What does it say?

Scott


Dan wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Scott writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
>>> their site?
>>
>>
>> Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.

[Scott[_1_]]

I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
in the 1940s to "help" them out. Now they're returning the favor...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/19/101103.shtml

Scott



Scott wrote:
> What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
> blocked? What does it say?
>
> Scott
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Scott writes:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>> So why do you say the Air Force is cowardly for not letting YOU see
>>>> their site?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because I don't see any other reason for blocking it.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Well this one has me stumped. Makes no sense. How would they know
> which IP addresses are from France alone?

Address range assignments. They are usually linked to geographic locations.

> It's not like any IP address that starts with 168 for example is from France.

No, but there are ranges that are assigned to France.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
> blocked? What does it say?

The browser can't reach the site. I can ping some of the sites, but they
don't answer a browser.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
> in the 1940s to "help" them out.

Are Americans still upset about the French paying for their independence?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> I thought the implication was they were smart and wouldn't take up
> fighting (which would be evidenced by that military history). Maybe I
> misunderstood the Frenchman's posts...

What Frenchman?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> As Chuck says, Remember the Alamo! Oh wait...they weren't THERE either!

They were there when the Americans hadn't a ghost of a chance against the
British.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> Unlike you who is big and tough behind his modem?

I don't give away my civil liberties.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> Then why do you have a firewall? What does it do for you?

It blocks specific types of traffic, not address ranges.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dan[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
> in the 1940s to "help" them out. Now they're returning the favor...
>

There's a difference in the minds of the French. On very rare
occasions there has been vandalism to U.S. cemeteries in France. The
French of all generations react with extreme negativity and the
perpetrators are in for a rough time. The French make a distinction
between those who liberated them and those in power now.

The French know far more about U.S. assistance during and after WW1
and WW2 than Americans know about how big a role the French played
during the American Revolution.

I have no great love for France of today, but they did save our butts
in the 1700s. In case you are wondering why I make such a distinction
myself I will give you one example. During WW2 the French ran a
concentration camp for the Nazis. It was called Drancy. There is no
monument to those who suffered there, just an apartment complex. France,
as a nation, chose not to face their complicity in the crimes of the Nazis.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[erik]

On Feb 15, 8:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jerry Springer writes:
> > I well say it, I don't think calling our AirForce cowards well make you
> > many friends in this county, I knew there was a reason I quit eating
> > "french" fries.
>
> They can allow overseas users access to their public Web sites and prove me
> wrong. But they're too a-scared to do that.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I live in South Africa and can access the site without problems.

[erik]

On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Scott writes:
> > What would it be from your region that frightens the Air Force?
>
> I don't know; you tell me.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Oh Gawd, this MUST be Juan. If it's not Juan, it's his twin.

[Scott[_1_]]

What browser and version are you running?


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>What indication do you see on your monitor that says you are being
>>blocked? What does it say?
>
>
> The browser can't reach the site. I can ping some of the sites, but they
> don't answer a browser.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Ok, so the French WILL resort to fighting...

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>As Chuck says, Remember the Alamo! Oh wait...they weren't THERE either!
>
>
> They were there when the Americans hadn't a ghost of a chance against the
> British.
>

[Jerry Springer]

Only thing the french are good at is burning cars.


Scott wrote:
> Good one. How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
> wrong) around the world? I wouldn't consider anyone in the military as
> being a coward, U.S. or otherwise. Watch the news sometime...or don't
> they offer those channels in France?
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>>
>>
>>
>> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>>
>>
>>> Are they cowards or smart?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>>

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> What browser and version are you running?

It happens with all of my browsers (Firefox, MSIE, Lynx, Opera).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> > Are they cowards or smart?
>
> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.

Now you've done it - I was just about to send you a dollar so you could have
a nice dinner at McDonalds but after that, I don't think I will.

Maybe the USAF is blocking you because they read your blog.

BDS

[Tony]

It's my turn to contribute to the noise of this thread. I'm pretty
sure I saw an airport wiIth a paved runway right under the airplane
where this accident happened, and that glimpse is supported the
observation that the glider was just released.

Does it strike anyone as odd that the pilot chose to deploy the
parachute rather than glide to a landing? It was not clear to be that
the airplane was out of control after striking the tow line, but maybe
I'm missing something.

A second point: I adopted a strategy shown to me by an older more
experienced pilot. Enroute he almost always flew (the a/c was an Aero
Commander 680, a high wing twin) at his assigned altitude + about 75
feet, figuring it decreased the odds of a midair a little. I took on
the habit of averaging about 75 feet under my chosen or assigned
altitude, given the Mooney is a low wing airplane and vis is better up
than down.

And notice I did say 'average'. My handflying enroute tolerance is
quite a lot better than +/- 100 feet, but with lots of time in the
airplane, careful trimming, and paying attention it's not hard to hold
altitude to a couple of needle widths. I think most pilots with a
reasonable amount of time do at least as well as that.


by the On Feb 9, 5:21 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> I got the following link to this video via the Matronics Zenith e-mail
> list. What's interesting and fascinating about it is that it contains video
> from a cockpit camera that shows the impending mid-air collision and the
> cockpit view when the aircraft hits the ground under the chute:
>
> http://www.turbopilot.com/copa/image3/brs.wmv
>
> I guess cockpit cameras are becoming common enough that this sort of video
> would be inevitable.
>
> (Not sure why the pilot didn't see the towing aircraft - unless it was
> because the other plane was coming up from below to his right.)

[Scott[_1_]]

Well, I guess if everyone has to be good at something, that's as good as
anything...



Jerry Springer wrote:
> Only thing the french are good at is burning cars.
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Good one. How many French are in any sort of armed conflict (right or
>> wrong) around the world? I wouldn't consider anyone in the military
>> as being a coward, U.S. or otherwise. Watch the news sometime...or
>> don't they offer those channels in France?
>>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are they cowards or smart?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>>>

[Scott[_1_]]

Juan's an IT guru...maybe he can figure it out. I'm out of ideas.



Mxsmanic wrote:

> Scott writes:
>
>
>>What browser and version are you running?
>
>
> It happens with all of my browsers (Firefox, MSIE, Lynx, Opera).
>

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Now you've done it - I was just about to send you a dollar so you could have
> a nice dinner at McDonalds but after that, I don't think I will.

Dinner at McDonald's actually costs about eight dollars.

> Maybe the USAF is blocking you because they read your blog.

Cowards favor censorship.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jerry Springer]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> BDS writes:
>
>
>>Now you've done it - I was just about to send you a dollar so you could have
>>a nice dinner at McDonalds but after that, I don't think I will.
>
>
> Dinner at McDonald's actually costs about eight dollars.
>
>
>>Maybe the USAF is blocking you because they read your blog.
>
>
> Cowards favor censorship.
>
Troll troll troll your boat gently.................................

[boB[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Maybe they know it's you and they blocked your address?
>
> It happens on every other computer I've tried, too.
>
>> Are they cowards or smart?
>
> Cowards. Like most Americans these days.
>

Now.... That's not going to make you any friends MX

--

boB
copter.six - - An American who was pretty scared during Desert Storm

[Mxsmanic]

boB writes:

> Now.... That's not going to make you any friends MX

I'm not trying to make friends.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[boB[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Scott writes:
>
>> I guess we owe the French. They still seem ****ed about us coming over
>> in the 1940s to "help" them out.
>
> Are Americans still upset about the French paying for their independence?
>

The french, when blasting the USA, conveniently leave out their actions
in the Suez Canal and some small brushfires in Africa where they were
more than unethical.

--

boB
copter.six


U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas
5NM West of Gray Army/Killeen Regional (KGRK)

[Mxsmanic]

boB writes:

> The french, when blasting the USA, conveniently leave out their actions
> in the Suez Canal and some small brushfires in Africa where they were
> more than unethical.

Americans leave a lot out, too. Nobody is blameless.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Hate to say it, but he just happens to be right. It's actually a pretty
widely acknowledged by pilots.

mike

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
news:wrpzh.2391$z6.1016@bigfe9...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Fortunately, mathematics can help. If everyone flies around completely
>> at
>> random, it's statistically wildly improbable that any aircraft will ever
>> collide. In fact, traffic patterns, airways, altitude restrictions, and
>> navaids actually increase the chances of a collision, rather than
>> decreasing
>
> This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long LONG time!
>
> Thanks for the laugh!

[mike regish]

I also wondered why the plane wasn't flyable. Wings looked fine on the
ground. He didn't have a lot of time to make the decision at 1000 feet, so
he probably figured it's now or never. It would have taken some of that
precious time and altitude to determine the plane was flyable. With more
altitude, I'll bet he would have let it fly for a while and maybe have been
able to determine it was flyable, but down low, there's just no time for
that. Those chutes use up something like 700 or 800 vertical feet to fully
deploy, I believe.

mike

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised that the pilot believes he is alive today because of the
>> parachute. The aircraft doesn't look severely damaged; the control
>> surfaces
>> are in place. What would have prevented him from gliding to a landing?
>>
> Because it requires more skill than just typing CTRL-ALT-DELETE you.
> Don't second guess real pilots.

[mike regish]

I'm pretty sure that by now EVERYBODY knows that mx is not a real pilot.

mike

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
news:kKtzh.360$II6.316@trnddc07...
>
> NOTICE!!!!
> Mxsmanic is NOT a pilot, has NEVER flown an aircraft and is NOT qualified
> to
> issue competent information regarding any aspect of the operation of any
> aircraft.
>
>

[mike regish]

Looked to me like the tow plane was evading. I'd agreee that the towplane
had a better view. Must have seen the Rans at the last second.

mike

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "chris" > wrote:

>(the tow-plane appeared to be climbing as it passed in front,
> left to right) and somewhere off to the right - the cowling or camera(!)
> blocking the view of the other plane. And then there is all the ground
> clutter the pilot in the higher plane has to process to see anything lower
> that also happens to be nearly stationary with respect to the scenery.
>
> So (and this is all speculation of course!) it seems to me the tow-plane
> pilot might possibly have had the better view to "see and avoid" - since
> there were no less than two planes above his altitude that he was heading
> toward.

[mike regish]

That's a guy who better not take up skydiving.

mike

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

> Now if he'd just get smart enough to fly the airplane and have some
> one else do the photography, or will he be like the guy we had at the
> airport that ran out of gas three times in a couple of months before
> trashing a 172. Then he had another one for maybe 6 months before he
> stalled the engine on a taxiway, got out and propped it (battery was
> dead) but forgot to retard the throttle. It left without him and ended
> up in the trees on the SW corner of the airfield. About 6 months later
> he piled up and Emeraud putting himself and another guy in the
> hospital. They did both survive and the Emeraud is flying. (different
> pilot)<:-)).
>
>>Mid-air
>>
>>
>>Montblack
>>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> I'm pretty sure that by now EVERYBODY knows that mx is not a real pilot.
>

Read just a few more threads here, and you'll find out how wrong you are.
Several clueless and some recent converts seeing the light within the last
few days. He's as dangerous to the non-regulars as he always was.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ken Finney]

"Over" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Over" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>
>>>>After nearly 20 years of working with some of the most dedicated and
>>>>nicest people, it is hard to ignore more groundless criticism from
>>>>someone who can't find or hold a job on either continent.
>>>
>>> There's little doubt that most of the American Air force are exactly as
>>> you say, and great ambassadors for your country as well. I see many of
>>> them often here in eastern Canada. There are a few you could afford to
>>> hide away at home though, usually lower ranks.
>>>
>>
>> Those are the ones we send to Canada. We figure they will fit it better
>> there...
>>
>
> Now I know why you get all your good comedians from here.
>

Now that we can agree on! Rick Mercer is doing some of best comedy I've
ever seen.

[mike regish]

Not always. A REAL pilot on this group had the wrong impression that mid air
risk is no greater around VORs or airports.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> I'm pretty sure that by now EVERYBODY knows that mx is not a real pilot.
>>
>
> Read just a few more threads here, and you'll find out how wrong you are.
> Several clueless and some recent converts seeing the light within the last
> few days. He's as dangerous to the non-regulars as he always was.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Whome?]

On 2/18/2007 4:39:47 PM, Thomas Borchert wrote:
>Mike,
>
>> I'm pretty sure that by now EVERYBODY knows that mx is not a real pilot.
>>
>
>Read just a few more threads here, and you'll find out how wrong you are.
>Several clueless and some recent converts seeing the light within the last
>few days. He's as dangerous to the non-regulars as he always was.
>

Interesting. I guess he has ****ed off a few others elsewhere too. Found this
on rec.aviation.simulators today.

Under the topic *Don't Get Mad Get Even*

Anthony Atkielski, AKA MXSMANIC, is a troll and a vandal. He has driven many
regular posters from these newsgroups.

Many argue that he has a 'right' to post his off-topic drivel, and those who
don't like it should simply ignore it.

People have tried to politely ask him to cut it out.

He has consistantly refused.

It's like going to the beach where a large group of people next to you are
playing their music too loud. They claim it's their 'right', and there's
nothing you can do about it except leave.

I say "Fight Back"

Go to Anthony's web site www.atkielski.com and book a tour or english lesson.

He will never be able to trust another booking he gets through his website,
unless he confirms the reservation and/or asks for a deposit.

This change, alone, will drive away at least a few potential 'real life'
clients.

We have done to his website what he has done to our newsgroup. Made it
worthless.