See & Avoid

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
that newsworthy.
SEE AND AVOID.
Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................

[john smith]

This is not a new problem. I remember 25 years ago an article in Rotor &
Wing about a local group of helicopter pilots somewhere (news gathering,
police, air evac) sitting down and formalizing the priorities,
altitudes, direction of orbit, etc. for arrival on the scene of whatever
they were covering. To the best of my knowledge, they were the only ones
who did it. I ask one of the local news pilots where I live if the local
pilots were going to get together and for such a pact. His response was
that his station wouldn't agree to anything like that.

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> that newsworthy.
> SEE AND AVOID.
> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:00:19 -0400, john smith > wrote
in >:

>His response was that his station wouldn't agree to anything like that.

Perhaps they'd agree to put a third person, a journalist, aboard to
relieve the pilot from the burden of trying to do the reporting while
s/he maintains situational awareness and complies with the
see-and-avoid regulations. Just a thought.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >His response was that his station wouldn't agree to anything like that.
>
> Perhaps they'd agree to put a third person, a journalist, aboard to
> relieve the pilot from the burden of trying to do the reporting while
> s/he maintains situational awareness and complies with the
> see-and-avoid regulations. Just a thought.

Perhaps it would be better to make that third person the idiot who wouldn't
agree to coordinating with the other stations.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Hilton]

Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its limitations
and does not work?

Hilton


"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> that newsworthy.
> SEE AND AVOID.
> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................
>

[Al G[_2_]]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
t...
> Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
> limitations and does not work?
>
> Hilton
>
>
Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.

Al G


> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
>> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
>> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
>> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
>> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
>> that newsworthy.
>> SEE AND AVOID.
>> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................
>>
>
>

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jul 31, 4:00 pm, john smith > wrote:
> This is not a new problem. I remember 25 years ago an article in Rotor &
> Wing about a local group of helicopter pilots somewhere (news gathering,
> police, air evac) sitting down and formalizing the priorities,
> altitudes, direction of orbit, etc. for arrival on the scene of whatever
> they were covering. To the best of my knowledge, they were the only ones
> who did it. I ask one of the local news pilots where I live if the local
> pilots were going to get together and for such a pact. His response was
> that his station wouldn't agree to anything like that.
>
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> > was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> > right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> > two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> > results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> > that newsworthy.
> > SEE AND AVOID.
> > Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My experience is pretty old so I dont know how current it is...butwhen
I was in grad school I helped install the avionics on the helo of a
major news channel in ATL. They started out flying with a helo pilot,
a camera tech, Heather the Helicopter Bunny and an engineer. I was
trying to bum rotor wing time so sometimes I did that and babysat the
equipment that was still (then) pretty new.

That worked pretty good, but there was absolutly no coordination
between the three news choppers. The news choppers could and would
coordinate with all the official vehicles and of course ATC, but the
only coordination was between the pilots and it was essentially off
the record.

Eventually I moved on to something else and Heather the Helo babe was
replaced with a "Pilot reporter" and a camera person. The PR "Bruce
the sky pilot" also like to think he was an engineer so eventually
even the station engineer left the helo.

I think that they are now all essentially two people flights.

That was actually (when Iwas riding) some fun. Heather the helo babe
was quite cool and we use to have all sorts of fun for the hour and
one half that we were "up and on call"...nothing like stopping at the
Varsity for some chili cheese dogs...

Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:03:09 -0700, "Hilton" > wrote
in >:

>Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its limitations
>and does not work?

There is little question that when the 250 knot speed restriction
below 10,000' is not followed, see-and-avoid is an unreasonable method
of separating aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&ntsbno=MIA01FA028A&akey=1

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Jul 31, 3:25 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:00:19 -0400, john smith > wrote
> in >:
>
> >His response was that his station wouldn't agree to anything like that.
>
> Perhaps they'd agree to put a third person, a journalist, aboard to
> relieve the pilot from the burden of trying to do the reporting while
> s/he maintains situational awareness and complies with the
> see-and-avoid regulations. Just a thought.

Unfortunately, that would cost $$$ and station managers hate spending $
$$...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

[Hilton]

Al,

Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that it
was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports are
littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
aviation.

Hilton



"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hilton" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
>> limitations and does not work?
>>
>> Hilton
>>
>>
> Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.
>
> Al G
>
>
>> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
>>> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
>>> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
>>> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
>>> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
>>> that newsworthy.
>>> SEE AND AVOID.
>>> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:52:12 -0700, Jay Beckman >
wrote in m>:

>Unfortunately, that would cost $$$ and station managers hate spending $
>$$...

I wonder how the TV station managers feel about killing their
personnel and facing law suits for negligence by the dead employee's
estate?

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 1, 1:52 am, "Hilton" > wrote:
> Al,
>
> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
> shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
> It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that it
> was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports are
> littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
> other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
> aviation.
>
> Hilton
>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Hilton" > wrote in message
> t...
> >> Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
> >> limitations and does not work?
>
> >> Hilton
>
> > Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.
>
> > Al G
>
> >> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> >>> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> >>> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> >>> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> >>> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> >>> that newsworthy.
> >>> SEE AND AVOID.
> >>> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Al
See and avoid is nonsense? Kid, I've been flying all over the world
more than 50 years and see and avoid has kept me alive. Certainly
there are occasions when a lapse has caused a mid-air such as the PHX
case in point. The moment you stick your head up your ass is when
you're gonna get buried that way. I don't care how careful you are,
accidents happen and all we can do is try to minimize them. ATC ain't
much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
danger to everyone concerned.
As for the SAN accident, I was working there at that time and it was a
case of everyone doing the right thing but no one was looking outside
in a very dangerous area for that particular approach into Lindbergh.
The 727 guys were involved in the approach to land, and the guys in
the 182 were involved in the missed approach procedures. They simply
didn't SEE AND AVOID. I mean, how big is a 727? Impacted near the wing
root?
Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................
OL S&B 24,000 hrs and counting

[Adhominem]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> See and avoid is nonsense?
He didn't say that. All he said is that it doesn't work all of the time, for
various reasons.

Adhominem

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:20:38 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
> wrote in
om>:

>Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................

It also happens when FAA maximum speed regulations below 10,000' are
relaxed for military aircraft:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X33340&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12242&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22313&key=1

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Hilton wrote:
> Al,
>
> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
> shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the
> time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to
> say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB
> reports are littered with accidents and near misses where
> the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair being a very
> important one in the history of aviation.
>
> Hilton

You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new well or
should have known well that other news copters were in the area covering the
same story.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 1, 8:35 am, Adhominem > wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > See and avoid is nonsense?
>
> He didn't say that. All he said is that it doesn't work all of the time, for
> various reasons.
>
> Adhominem

Ad...
snip..."helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that it
was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense."
Ummmm, which part of that did I miss?
Ol S&B

[Hilton]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>> Al,
>>
>> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
>> shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the
>> time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to
>> say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The
>> NTSB reports are littered with accidents and near misses where
>> the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair being a very
>> important one in the history of aviation.
>>
>> Hilton
>
> You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new well or
> should have known well that other news copters were in the area covering
> the same story.

Correct, there is absolutely no doubt they knew there were other aircraft
(very) near them. Let's assume that their attention was 100% outside with
perfect see-and-avoid scans etc. Still doesn't mean that either aircraft
even saw the other. Look, we have very few specifics about the accident, so
there is no way we can sit here and declare that the pilots definitely saw
each other and therefore see-n-avoid would have worked.

This all fits into the 'gees, what idiots, that'll never happen to me'. I
think that is a very dangerous attitude.

Hilton

[Denny]

When the camera guy is yelling at the pilot to get here, get there,
give me a better angle / / / it makes see and avoid hit and miss...
This time they hit... The FAA is unlikely to clamp down on the news
choppers (possible but not likely) unless they rain burning parts all
over the lawn of the White House or similar, then the reaction will be
swift...
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me - I don't watch the crap they call
news... I don't fly around the city at 200 feet, etc... So, let em go
on playing russian roulette as far as I'm concerned...

denny - pretty much apathetic today...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Hilton wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Hilton wrote:
>>> Al,
>>>
>>> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid'
>>> crowd shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100%
>>> of the time. It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and
>>> Bashful to say that it was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is
>>> nonsense. The NTSB reports are littered with accidents and near
>>> misses where the pilots never saw each other, the San Diego midair
>>> being a very important one in the history of aviation.
>>>
>>> Hilton
>>
>> You are right but this isn't one of those times. Those pilots new
>> well or should have known well that other news copters were in the
>> area covering the same story.
>
> Correct, there is absolutely no doubt they knew there were other
> aircraft (very) near them. Let's assume that their attention was
> 100% outside with perfect see-and-avoid scans etc. Still doesn't
> mean that either aircraft even saw the other. Look, we have very few
> specifics about the accident, so there is no way we can sit here and
> declare that the pilots definitely saw each other and therefore see-n-
> avoid would have worked.
> This all fits into the 'gees, what idiots, that'll never happen to
> me'. I think that is a very dangerous attitude.
>
> Hilton

I agree that we don't know everything about the accident and that is the
problem with aircraft accidents we often never do.

But working from what we do know.

1. We know that there were at least two news choppers up there and they knew
or should have known that other choppers were there.

2. Unlike fixed-wing a helicopter can stop and if I lost sight of the other
helicopter(s) that is exactly what they should have done.

2A.(Pure Conjecture) There is a chance that a helicopter in the front
that lost sight of one behind did exactly that and the one in back ran into
him.

3. Pilots working under conditions like this one have an even higher
responsibility to see and avoid and should be well practiced in it.

4. I can think of no mechanical problem that could cause these helos to
collide if one or both weren't flying to close together in the first place
and hence there pilot error yet again raises it's ugly head.

I am a little concerned from what I've read here that ENG choppers aren't
coordinating like ones I worked with 20 years ago. And someone made the
comment that management wouldn't go for it. If I was flying and that was the
case I'd then try to deal with it over a beer with the other pilots.
Management would never know.

And at least as far as I'm concerned I've never said or thought, "gees, what
idiots, that'll never happen to me." I usually say or think 'gees, what
idiots, I hope I never do something that stupid."

[Al G[_2_]]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 1, 1:52 am, "Hilton" > wrote:
>> Al,
>>
>> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
>> shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
>> It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that
>> it
>> was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports
>> are
>> littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
>> other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
>> aviation.
>>
>> Hilton
>>
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Hilton" > wrote in message
>> t...
>> >> Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
>> >> limitations and does not work?
>>
>> >> Hilton
>>
>> > Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.
>>
>> > Al G
>>
>> >> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >>> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
>> >>> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
>> >>> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
>> >>> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
>> >>> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
>> >>> that newsworthy.
>> >>> SEE AND AVOID.
>> >>> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide
>> >>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Al
> See and avoid is nonsense? Kid, I've been flying all over the world
> more than 50 years and see and avoid has kept me alive. Certainly
> there are occasions when a lapse has caused a mid-air such as the PHX
> case in point. The moment you stick your head up your ass is when
> you're gonna get buried that way. I don't care how careful you are,
> accidents happen and all we can do is try to minimize them. ATC ain't
> much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
> who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
> danger to everyone concerned.
> As for the SAN accident, I was working there at that time and it was a
> case of everyone doing the right thing but no one was looking outside
> in a very dangerous area for that particular approach into Lindbergh.
> The 727 guys were involved in the approach to land, and the guys in
> the 182 were involved in the missed approach procedures. They simply
> didn't SEE AND AVOID. I mean, how big is a 727? Impacted near the wing
> root?
> Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................
> OL S&B 24,000 hrs and counting
>

Well, first, the nonsense comment wasn't mine. I said:

>> > Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.


Second, Thanks, it has been 50 years since someone called me kid.
Pretty soon, they'll start carding me again(senior discount).

Third, I've been flying all over the world for more than 35 years
and see and avoid has Certainly kept me alive. My habit of scanning
everywhere spotted 2 F106's at my 7 o'clock, less than a mile. I avoided
them, and the miss was close enough for me to spot the Oakleaf under the
plastic on the Major's shoulder. The "picture" down into his cockpit will be
with me for a very long time.

Fourth, If you read the entire report on the San Diego accident,
you'll find that the captain could not see the 152 that was low and to the
right, because of the glareshield and the panel. The co-pilot was not in a
position to see the traffic either. A windshield post on the right side
blocked one eye, and the attach point of his optic nerve blocked the other
eye. By the time he moved enough to see the traffic, it was too late to
avoid. It is very difficult for slower traffic to scan behind them, as you
well know, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

My closest calls have all been while over 10,000', and in the higher
airspeeds. I find my odds are improved if I fly 100' off my VFR altitude,
1/2 mile to the right of an airway, and not directly over a VOR. I try to
always use flight following, for what it's worth. When I was instructing
full time, I would occasionally take a 172, and sneak up on one of my
students in the practice area. I didn't have to get close, just close enough
for him to spot me. After seeing an aircraft close by, they always started
scanning diligently. See and avoid definitely works, but nothing is 100%.


> ATC ain't
> much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
> who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
> danger to everyone concerned.

Amen.



Al G CFIAMI 2069297

[Gene Seibel]

On Aug 1, 10:17 am, Denny > wrote:
> When the camera guy is yelling at the pilot to get here, get there,
> give me a better angle / / / it makes see and avoid hit and miss...
> This time they hit... The FAA is unlikely to clamp down on the news
> choppers (possible but not likely) unless they rain burning parts all
> over the lawn of the White House or similar, then the reaction will be
> swift...
> Anyway, it doesn't matter to me - I don't watch the crap they call
> news... I don't fly around the city at 200 feet, etc... So, let em go
> on playing russian roulette as far as I'm concerned...
>
> denny - pretty much apathetic today...

My first thought was that the viewers got what they tuned in for.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 1, 10:39 am, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:52 am, "Hilton" > wrote:
> >> Al,
>
> >> Exactly. Doesn't matter how often and vocal the 'see and avoid' crowd
> >> shouts, the truth is that 'see and avoid' does not work 100% of the time.
> >> It obviously really really helps, but for Ol Shy and Bashful to say that
> >> it
> >> was "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense. The NTSB reports
> >> are
> >> littered with accidents and near misses where the pilots never saw each
> >> other, the San Diego midair being a very important one in the history of
> >> aviation.
>
> >> Hilton
>
> >> "Al G" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > "Hilton" > wrote in message
> >> t...
> >> >> Do you believe that there are times when 'see and avoid' has its
> >> >> limitations and does not work?
>
> >> >> Hilton
>
> >> > Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.
>
> >> > Al G
>
> >> >> "Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >>> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> >> >>> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> >> >>> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> >> >>> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> >> >>> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> >> >>> that newsworthy.
> >> >>> SEE AND AVOID.
> >> >>> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................- Hide
> >> >>> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Al
> > See and avoid is nonsense? Kid, I've been flying all over the world
> > more than 50 years and see and avoid has kept me alive. Certainly
> > there are occasions when a lapse has caused a mid-air such as the PHX
> > case in point. The moment you stick your head up your ass is when
> > you're gonna get buried that way. I don't care how careful you are,
> > accidents happen and all we can do is try to minimize them. ATC ain't
> > much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
> > who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
> > danger to everyone concerned.
> > As for the SAN accident, I was working there at that time and it was a
> > case of everyone doing the right thing but no one was looking outside
> > in a very dangerous area for that particular approach into Lindbergh.
> > The 727 guys were involved in the approach to land, and the guys in
> > the 182 were involved in the missed approach procedures. They simply
> > didn't SEE AND AVOID. I mean, how big is a 727? Impacted near the wing
> > root?
> > Yah **** happens in spite of our efforts................
> > OL S&B 24,000 hrs and counting
>
> Well, first, the nonsense comment wasn't mine. I said:
>
> >> > Sure, The San Diego midair comes to mind.
>
> Second, Thanks, it has been 50 years since someone called me kid.
> Pretty soon, they'll start carding me again(senior discount).
>
> Third, I've been flying all over the world for more than 35 years
> and see and avoid has Certainly kept me alive. My habit of scanning
> everywhere spotted 2 F106's at my 7 o'clock, less than a mile. I avoided
> them, and the miss was close enough for me to spot the Oakleaf under the
> plastic on the Major's shoulder. The "picture" down into his cockpit will be
> with me for a very long time.
>
> Fourth, If you read the entire report on the San Diego accident,
> you'll find that the captain could not see the 152 that was low and to the
> right, because of the glareshield and the panel. The co-pilot was not in a
> position to see the traffic either. A windshield post on the right side
> blocked one eye, and the attach point of his optic nerve blocked the other
> eye. By the time he moved enough to see the traffic, it was too late to
> avoid. It is very difficult for slower traffic to scan behind them, as you
> well know, but that doesn't stop me from trying.
>
> My closest calls have all been while over 10,000', and in the higher
> airspeeds. I find my odds are improved if I fly 100' off my VFR altitude,
> 1/2 mile to the right of an airway, and not directly over a VOR. I try to
> always use flight following, for what it's worth. When I was instructing
> full time, I would occasionally take a 172, and sneak up on one of my
> students in the practice area. I didn't have to get close, just close enough
> for him to spot me. After seeing an aircraft close by, they always started
> scanning diligently. See and avoid definitely works, but nothing is 100%.
>
> > ATC ain't
> > much help, a crew that isn't watching out isn't much help, and a pilot
> > who is so involved in something besides flying the aircraft is a
> > danger to everyone concerned.
>
> Amen.
>
> Al G CFIAMI 2069297- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Al
Sometimes the posts get so fragged its hard to tell who said what and
thats why I try to snip the pertinent parts. It would appear we are
pretty much in agreement on the subject though.
Another near fatal midair over San Diego came to mind from that same
time frame. I was an instructor for PSA at that time at Brown Field. A
Japanese student (Japan Airline) returning from a filed XC was over
the Julian VOR in NE San Diego County at 6,500msl. A Navy F8U coming
up out of Miramar eastbound with a steep angle said he saw a flash of
something and made a hard left turn to avoid whatever he thought he
saw. He reported that he had a potential midair and was RTB. On
landing, they found white paint on his extreme wing tip and minor
scrapes/gouges.
The Japanese student said he felt a bump and thought it was mountain
turbulence until he noticed the metal of his left wing had apparently
curled forward like a tear. He called in to company radio and said he
thought he had hit something but wasn't sure what. Eventually he got
back on the ground at Brown Field in south SDiego county where it was
discovered his left wing was within honest to god INCHES from being
severed. Nearly half the wing spar had been cut just outboard of the
landing gear, the hydraulic lines had been bent upwards, and the
entire wing had to be replaced.
That happened on March 4, 1969. I'm looking at the pics and news
article. He was one of my students. Another case of right place, right
time, doing the expected right thing and only by the grace of God was
a fatal midair avoided.
There is simply NO WAY any pilot can afford not to keep their head on
a swivel watching for hazards and see and avoid. If there are any
pilots out there who feel otherwise, I don't want them anywhere me in
any kind of airborne object.
Best Professional Regards Al........I figure anyone less than 70 I can
call kid...<gg>
Rocky ATP #155XXXX

[Blueskies]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message oups.com...
> Seems to be some hysteria about the recent collision in Phoenix. It
> was a pure and simple see and avoid problem. Doesn't matter who had
> right of way, if they were adhering to FAR's or not, bottom line is
> two helicopters tried to inhabit the same airspace with the fatal
> results of four dead simply to cover a news story that was not all
> that newsworthy.
> SEE AND AVOID.
> Someone screwed up. Let the lawsuits begin....................
>

Seems to me that is the same problem they had in OSH w/the mustangs...

[Jay Beckman[_2_]]

On Aug 1, 4:28 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:52:12 -0700, Jay Beckman >
> wrote in m>:
>
> >Unfortunately, that would cost $$$ and station managers hate spending $
> >$$...
>
> I wonder how the TV station managers feel about killing their
> personnel and facing law suits for negligence by the dead employee's
> estate?

Did I say it was right? No, don't think I did.

I'm mearly stating a fact: Station Managers hate spending $$$. In
fact, I'll go so far as to say that management in any line of work
hates spending $$$.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Adhominem]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

> "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense."

He didn't say that see and avoid is nonsense. He said that your
conclusion "see and avoid failed" -> "someone must have screwed up" would
be nonsense, because it might have been that see and avoid failed because
it doesn't always work. That is, nobody screwed up, yet see and avoid still
failed. This is not the same as saying that see and avoid is nonsense, but
it is saying that see and avoid sometimes breaks down even if nobody screws
up.

Adhominem.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 2, 4:09 am, Adhominem > wrote:
> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>
> > "SEE AND AVOID - someone screwed up" is nonsense."
>
> He didn't say that see and avoid is nonsense. He said that your
> conclusion "see and avoid failed" -> "someone must have screwed up" would
> be nonsense, because it might have been that see and avoid failed because
> it doesn't always work. That is, nobody screwed up, yet see and avoid still
> failed. This is not the same as saying that see and avoid is nonsense, but
> it is saying that see and avoid sometimes breaks down even if nobody screws
> up.
>
> Adhominem.

AD
Did you read the quote? I can read and write english fluently. I don't
see the words "conclusion", or "failed" If he meant something else why
not say it in clear english?
I recall another SoCal midair in the early 60's when a C-150 collided
with a Twin Otter near Los Alamitos west of Fullerton CA. It was late
afternoon and both were headed in a westerly direction. The sunlit
haze cut visibility to practically nothing. Were all the flight crews
looking diligently? We'll never know. I knew the instructor of the
C150 and he had about 10,000 hours of flight time. He and his student
died, I don't recall what happened to the ****ter.
I operated in the SoCal area for nearly 20 years mostly doing single
pilot corporate ops - SNA, VNY, SAN, LGB, SMO, FUL, etc.....an
extremely busy area for flight ops. Now I am operating on the Gulf
Coast and have a lot of close encounters with military training
aircraft on a weekly basis. I'll continue to keep my head on a swivel
and do my damndest to SEE AND AVOID to avoid being on the News at 9. I
can only hope every other pilot out there has the same attitude.
Best Regards and fly safe
Ol S&B

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:42:38 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
> wrote in
. com>:

>Now I am operating on the Gulf
>Coast and have a lot of close encounters with military training
>aircraft on a weekly basis. I'll continue to keep my head on a swivel
>and do my damndest to SEE AND AVOID to avoid being on the News at 9. I
>can only hope every other pilot out there has the same attitude.

I don't know what you're flying, but from the military/civil MACs,
whose NTSB URLs I posted earlier in this message thread, I get the
impression that the military pilots, operating well in excess of the
250 knot speed restriction below 10,000' in their stoutly constructed
fighters and trainers equipped with ejection seats do not have the
same trepidation of colliding with a "LBF" that GA pilots have. After
all, the military pilots survived the MACs without injury.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 2, 6:30 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:42:38 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
> > wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >Now I am operating on the Gulf
> >Coast and have a lot of close encounters with military training
> >aircraft on a weekly basis. I'll continue to keep my head on a swivel
> >and do my damndest to SEE AND AVOID to avoid being on the News at 9. I
> >can only hope every other pilot out there has the same attitude.
>
> I don't know what you're flying, but from the military/civil MACs,
> whose NTSB URLs I posted earlier in this message thread, I get the
> impression that the military pilots, operating well in excess of the
> 250 knot speed restriction below 10,000' in their stoutly constructed
> fighters and trainers equipped with ejection seats do not have the
> same trepidation of colliding with a "LBF" that GA pilots have. After
> all, the military pilots survived the MACs without injury.

Larry
All the more reason for heads up huh? Another incident/accident
occured in SE Wa state (mid 90's?) when a pair of Navy jets ran over a
Grumman Ag Cat from his 6 at about 2-300agl while he was returning
from a spray flight. The Navy tried to blame the Ag Cat pilot for the
collision! The Cat pilot survived but was pretty badly injured. I can
think of a couple times when military jet aircraft were flying over
area I was spraying in a Pawnee and it was pretty damned close.
I see T-34's and T-6's all over our operating area and the close calls
are nearly always with a flight of two in formation. I suspect they
are tooo involved in avoiding a mid-air in the formation than they are
about colliding with another aircraft?
Best Regards
Ol S&B